History  of 
Spisoopal  Methodism 

"fov 

George  Y\  Peurif oy 


Trinity  College  Library 
Durham,  N.  C. 


Rec'd  


THE  TEKEL  OF  METHODISM. 

HISTORY 


OF 


EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


IN  WHICH  ITS  CLAIMS 


TO  mim  A  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST 

AEE  INVESTIGATED. 


By 


ELDEB  GEOKGE  W.  PEUBIfOY, 
OF  ORANGE  COUNTY,  N.  C. 


*•  I  believe,  therefore  have  I  spoken ."-—D 'At im 

\s         — — 1 

S.i  CMAPELHILL: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  GAZETTE  (fakciS 


1858, 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


INTRODUCTION. 

There  are  various  denominations  claiming  to  be  the  Church  of  Christ, 
Their  claims  are  not  all  valid,  for  the  God  of  heaven  never  "set  up"; 
"but  one  Church  or  denomination  of  Christians. 

1.  It  is  contrary  to  reason,  that  the  Almighty  should  set  up,  or  fa- 
vor the  organization  of  antagonistic  denominations.  He  is  not  the 
author  of  one  to  advocate  Episcopacy,  and  of  another  to  oppose  it ;  of 
one  to  practice  immersion,  and  another  to  oppose  it,  and  practice 
sprinkling  ;  of  one  to  oppose  infant  baptism,  and  another  to  advocate 
and  practice  it ;  God  is  not  the  author  of  both  Baptist,  and  Pedo-bap- 
tist  Churches.  If  Pedo-baptist  Churches  are  of  God,  Baptist  Churches 
are  not.    If  Baptist  Churches  are  of  God,  Pedo-baptist  are  not. 

2.  That  God  is  the  author  of  but  one  Church  or  Christian  denomi- 
nation, is  evident  from  his  word.  No  one  will  assert,  or  believe  that 
the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles,  organized  more  than  one  Church  or  de- 
nomination. At  that  time  "the  God  of  Heaven  setup  a  kingdom.*' 
Daniel  2,  44.  If  he  set  up  divisions  in  his  kingdom  or  Church,  if  he 
set  up  antagonistic  Sects,  he  acted  with  less  wisdom  and  precaution, 
than  any  sensible  earthly  being  would.  No  human  sovereign  would 
be  guilty  of  setting  up  antagonistic  parties,  in  his  Kingdom,  neither 
has  God  done  any  such  thing.  Did  notour  Saviour  say,  "A  Kingdom 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand  V  Who  then,  will  say,  he  divided 
his  Kingdom,  into  antagonistic  Sects  ?  He  never  did  any  such  thing, 
the  divisions  that  exist,  are  not  of  God,  but  of  Man. 

Instead  of  dividing  his  people  the  Saviour  prayed  that  his  people 
might  "be  one/'  this  he  did  four  times,  See  John,  17,  11,  21,  22,  23. 
who  will  assert,  that  he  who  prayed  that  his  people  might  "be  one/' 
that  is,  remain  undivided,  is  the  author  of  more  than  one  denomina- 
tion? 


4 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


Divisions  in,  or  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  arc  expressly  forbidden, 
and  those  that  cause  them  are  to  he  marked  and  avoided.  Paul  says," 
Now  I  beseech  you  brethren,  mark  them  which  cause  divisions,  and 
offences  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and  avoid, 
tliem."  We  are  not  to  encourage  them  in  any  way  whatever,  see  also 
1,  Cor.  1 ;  10,  Eph.  4 ;  14,  Pet.  3  ;  8,  2  Cor.  13  ;  11,  and  Titus  3.  10. 

That  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  until  now,  there  has  been  in 
risible  existence,  the  Church  which  the  God  of  heaven  set  up,  will  not 
be  denied  by  any.  believer  in  the  Bible. 

By  the  kingdom  set  up  in  the  days  of  these  kings,  is  meant  the  Gos- 
pel Church,  of  which  it  is  said,"  it  shall  never  be  destoyed,  it  shall 
stand  forever,"  Dan.  2,  44.  The  Saviour  said,  "On  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 
Matt.  16 ;  18.  This,  and  the  preceeding  passage,  refer  to  the  setting 
rtp  the  visible  Church,  and  prove  that  it  was  to  have  a  perpetual  exis- 
tence. The  only  question,  is,  where  was  this  true  Church,  and  who 
composed  it,  during  the  dark  ages  of  Popish  persecution  ?  Catholics 
say  it  was  with  them.  This  cannot  be,  for  they  were  the  persecuting 
party. 

By  reference  to  Rev.  12 ;  6,  14,  it  will  be  clearly  seen  where  the 
true  Church  was  during  the  great  Romish  Apostacy,  the  reign  of  "the 
Man  of  Sin." 

"  And  the  woman  [the  Church]  fled  into  the  wilderness,  where  she 
hath  a  place  prepared  of  God,  that  they  should  feed  her  there  a  thous- 
and two  hundred  and  three  score  days,"  (that  is  12G0  years.)  "And 
to  the  woman  were  given  two  wings  of  a  great  eagle,  that  she  might 
fly  into  the  wilderness,  into  her  place  where  she  is  nourished  for  a 
f-ime,  and  times,  and  half  a  time  from  the  face  of  the  serpent." 

Prom  the  rise  of  "the  Man  of  sin,"  the  serpent,"  that  persecuted 
the  woman  until  the  Reformation,  the  true  gospel  Church  was  in  the 
wilderness,  fled  from  the  persecuting  power  of  papal  Rome.  This 
Church  had  been  in  the  wilderness  for  1260  years,  and  in  existence  at 
rfae  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  has  continued  ever  since. 

Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  (Presbyterian,)  says  of  Matt.  16,  18:  "This 
promise  seems  to  secure  to  his  people  that  there  shall  be,  in  all  ages, 
in  the  worst  times,  a  substantially  pure  Church  ;  that  there  shall  al- 
ways  be  a  body  of  people  more  or  less  numerous,  who  shall  hold  just 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


5, 


the  doctrines  and  order  of  Christ  house,  in  some  good  degree,  in  con- 
formity with  the  model  of  the  primitive  Church.  Accordingly,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  show  that,  ever  since  the  rise  of  the  'Man  of  Sin'  there 
has  been  a  Succession  of  those  whom  the  Scriptures  Style  'Witnesses 
for  God,'  'Witnesses  for  the  truth/  who  have  kept  alive  'the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  Saints /  and  have  in  some  good  degree  of  faith- 
fulness maintained  the  ordinances  and  discipline  which  the  inspired 
Apostles,  in  the  Master's  name  committed  to  the  keeping  of  the  Church,'* 
— Recom.  Letter  to  Dr.^Baird  p.  1. 

President  Edwards,  (Presbyterian)  SaySj  "In  every  age  of  this  dark 
time  (Popery)  there  appeared  particular  persons  in  all  parts  of  Chris- 
tendom, who  bore  a  testimony  against  the  corruptions  and  tyranny  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  There  is  no  one  age  of  antichrist,  even  m  the 
darkest  times,  but  Ecclesiastical  Historians  mention  by  name,  those 
who  manifested  an  abhorrence  of  the  Pope  and  his  idolatrous  worship, 
and  pleaded  for  the  ancient  purity  of  doctrine  and  worship.  God  was 
pleased  to  maintain  an  uninterupted  succession  of  many  witnesses  &e." 
— His.  of  Redemption,  p  205. 

Who  composed  this  "uninterrupted  succession,"  "who  bore  a  tes- 
timony against  the  corruptions  and  tyranny  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  *' 
who  constituted  the  "pure  Church/'  the  "witnesses  for  God/'  and 
"maintained  the  ordinance  and  discipline  of  the  Church"  &c. 
during  "the  dark  ages"  while  the  Church  was  hid,  or  "fled  into 
the  wilderness,"  for  1260  years  previous  to  the  Reformation? — 
What  denomination  of  Christians  has  descended  from  the  "uninterrup- 
ted Succession  of  many  witnesses?"-*  That  there  has  been  an  "unin- 
terrupted succession"  of  the  true  Church  from  the  Apostles  until  the 
present  time,  separate  and  distinct  from  the  Romish  Apostocy,  no 
true  protestant  will  deny,  God's  word  is  pledged  for  the  perpetuity  of 
his  visible  Church,  See  Dan.  2,  44,  and  Matt.  16,  18.  This  being  ad- 
mitted, it  becomes  an  exceedingly  interesting  subject  of  enquiry,  which 
of  the  present  denominations  has  the  best  claim  to  identity  icitli,  and 
decent  from  the  true  and  witnessing  Church.  This  is  a  momentous 
subject,  with  the  ability  of  protestants  to  meet  it,  depends  in  a  great 
measure,  their  success  in  a  contest  with  Roman  Catholics.    It  can  be 

*For  an  answer  to  the  proceeding  questions,  the  reader  is  refered  to  my  Dedication  Ser- 
mon, from  Daniel  2  ;  41,  u  large  edition  of  which  has  just  been  published. 


6 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


fully  and  triumphantly  met,  but  not  by  Pedobaptists,  for  Catho4 
Hcs  can  give  the  day  when  each  of  them  seceeded  from  her,  or  from  her 
offspring. 

Having  shown,  that  God  is  the  author  of  but  one  denomination,  or 
Church,  that  divisions  are  forbidden  ;  and  that  the  Church  which  he 
"set  up/'  was  never  to  be  destroyed,"  was  to  "Stand  forever,"  and 
that  it  "fled  into  the  wilderness,"  and  was  persecuted  even  unto  death 
for  hundreds  of  years  before  the  reformation,  and  still  has  existence. 
I  shall  enter  at  once  into  an  investigation  of  the  claims  of  the  so  called 
'  'Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  to  be  a  true  Church  of  God. 

Section  I. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  History  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  and  ex* 
amine  its  claims  to  be  a  true  and  Scriptural  Church  of  Jesus  Christ* 

1.  In  its  origin,  there  is  nothing  that  entitles  it  to  be  considered  a 
gospel  Church. 

Methodists  date  the  ris3  of  Methodism  in  A.  D.  1729.  Discipline  3 
The  origin  of  Methodism  was  as  follows  :  "In  November  1729,  at  which 
time  I,  (says  Mr.  Wesley.)  come  to  reside  in  Oxford,  my  brother  and 
I,  and  two  young  gentlemen  more,  agreed  to  spend  three  or  four  eve* 
nings  in  a  week  together.  On  Sunday  evening  we  read  something  in 
divinity,  on  other  nights  the  Greek  and  Latin  Classics." 

"On  Momky,  May  1st,  our  little  Society  began  in  London.  But  it 
may  be  observed  (says  Mr.  Wesley)  "the  first  rise  of  Methodism,  so 
called,  was  in  November  1729  when  four  of  us  met  together  at  Ox 
ford." — Wesley's  Works. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  first  rise  of  Methodism,  that  has  the  least 
'osemblance  of  a  Gospel  Church,  four  unconverted  Students  met  three 
>r  four  times  a  week,  there  was  no  preaching,  no  ordinances,  and  not 
a  converted  person  among  them.  At  that  time  it  was  not  a  Church, 
and  did  not  claim  to  be  one. 

2.  "The  Second  rise  of  Methodism"  (says  Mr.  Wesley)  "was  at 
Savannah,  in  Georgia,  in  April  1736,  when  twenty  or  thirty  persons 
met  in  my  house.  After  the  evening  service,  as  many  of  my  parish- 
oners  as  desire  it,  meet  at  my  house,  (as  they  do  on  Wednesday  eve- 
ning) and  spend  about  an  hour  in  prayer,  singing  and  mutual  exhor" 
tation.  A  smaller  number  (most  of  those  who  desire  to  communicate 
the  next  Sabbath)  met  here  on  Saturday  evening;  and  a  few  of  fcMse 


HISTORY  Ofc  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM, 


come  to  me  on  the  other  evenings,  and  pass  half  an  hour  in  the  same 
employment." 

In  this  Second  rise  of  Methodism,  as  described  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
there  is  nothing  that  entitles  it  to  be  called  a  gospelChurch,  it  did  not 
claim  to  be  a  Church.  When  Mr.  Wesley  got  into  a  difficulty,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  arbitrary  and  overbearing  disposition,  and  left  Savan- 
nah, for  England  at  8  o' clock  in  the  night,  with  an  indictment  hang- 
ing over  him,  every  vestage  of  Methodism  left  with  him.  Thus  ended 
the  second  rise  of  Methodism  without  the  formation  even  of  a  Society ! 

3.  The  third  rise  of  Methodism,  (says  Mr.  Wesley)  was  at  London 
on  May  1st  1737,  when  forty  or  fifty  of  us  agreed  to  meet  together 
every  Wednesday  evening,  in  order  to  have  a  free  conversation,  begun 
and  ended  with  singing  and  prayer." — Wesley's  Works  p.  7.  p.  348. 

Again  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "In  1739  our  Society  consisted  of  about  six- 
ty persons.  It  continued  gradually  increasing  all  the  year.  In  April 
I  went  down  to  Bristol,  and  soon  a  few  persons  agreed  to  meet  week- 
ly, with  the  same  intention  as  those  in  London." — Wesley's  Works  v.  7. 
p.  349. 

In  this  third  rise  of  Methodism,  there  is  no  appearance  of  a  Church. 
They  met  weekly  for  a  free  conversation,  and  opened  and  closed  by 
singing  and  prayer.  There  was  no  preaching  and  no  ordinances.  It 
was  not,  and  did  not  claim  to  be  a  Church.  No  intelligent  Methodist 
will  say  it  was  a  Church  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Wesley  never  called  his  Societies  a  Church.  He  did  not  allow 
his  preachers  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism  or  the  Lord's 
Supper,  until  he  was  in  the  82nd  year  of  his  life  !  His  Societies  were 
merely  of  a  social  nature  designed  for  classical  and  Spiritual  improve- 
ment, without  any  Church  organization. 

jgig^For  a  period  of  fifty  five  years  (from  1729  to  1784)  Methodism 
never  claimed  to  be  a  gospel  Church.^g^ 

Mr.  Inskip,  (a  Methodist,)  in  his  History  of  Methodism,  p.  37,  38, 
says  in  the  beginning  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  conceive  the  idea  of  a  So- 
ciety at  all.  Afterwards,  however,  he  consummated  such  an  organi- 
zation as  he  found  to  be  suitable  and  necessary.  But  this  organization 
was  not  a  distinct  sect,  holding  a  particular  formal  creed,  or  prescrib- 
ing any  exclusive  method  or  ceremonies  of  worship.  It  was  a  Society 
in  the  Church,  (of  England.)  Hence  those  connected  with  the  Socie- 
ffes.  were  earnestly  and  repeatedly  warned  of  the  evil  of  separating 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


from- the  Church/-'  that  is,  the  Church  of  England.  Bemeniber  it  was 
'/he"  John  Wesley,  not  the  Saviour  or  the  Apostles,  that  formed  these 
Societies  !  Remember  also  that  Inskip  says,  they  were  "not  a  dis- 
tinct sect,"  but  was  "a  Society  in  the  Church"  of  England,  and  were 
warned  of  tlie  evil  of  Separating  from  the  Church. 

Even  as  late  as  1780,  the  conference  held  in  Baltimore,  Maryland, 
\n  April,  by  a  resolution  urged  their  ministers  to  "continue  in  close 
connexion  with  the  Church  (of  England)  and  press  all  our  people,  to  a 
close  communion  with  her.';  In  N.  C.  C.  Advocate  April  1G,  1857  . 
"For  a  period  of  ffty-five  years,  Methodist  Societies  were  composed 
of  members  mainly,  who  were  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  this  is  over- 
whelming proof  that  the  Methodist  were  not  then  a  Church  for  they 
were  Societies  in  the  Church  of  England.  Methodism,  as  such,  did  not 
administer  the  ordinance  of  Baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper  from  its- 
rise  in  1729  to  1784,  a  period  of  fifty-five  years  !  According  to  their 
own  definition  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  they  were  not  a  Church,  from 
1729  to  1784,  a  period  pf  55  years. 

"The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in 
which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  Sacraments  duly  ad- 
ministered see  "Discipline,  p.  16.  The  ordinance  of  Baptism  and  tin 
Lord's  Supper  were  not  administered  in  their  Societies,  until  1784, 
fifty -five  years  from  its  "first  rise,"  consequently,  by  their  own  'defini- 
tion, they  were  not  a  "visible  Church"  from  1729  to  1784.  In  fact 
i\vQY  have  never  claimed,  that  they  were  a  Church,  until  1784.  This;, 
no  intelligent  Methodist  will  deny.  If  they  were  not  a  gospel  Church 
M<?/?,  the}-  are  not  one  now. 

>  Section  II.  _     . .   ■■  - 

That  Mr.  "\Yesleij  s  Societies  have  no  claim  to  be  called  a  Church  of 
Christ,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  those  who  belonged  to  them, 
might  at  the  same  time  be  a  regular  member  of  another  Christian  de- 
nomination. I  have  already  shown  that  they  were  mainly  member.- 
of  the  Church  of  England,  from  1729  to  1784,  (55  years.) 

Mr.  Inskip,  (a  Methodist,)  in  his  History  of  Methodism,  p.  35,  says. 
':one  circumstance  more  is  peculiar  to  the  people  called  Methodists  : 
that  is,  the  terms  upon  which  any  person  may  be  admitted  into  their 
.Society.  They  do  not  impose,  in  order  to  their  admission  any  opin- 
"  i  >ns  whatever.    Let  them  be  Church-men,  or  dissenter,  Presby  tevi  u  i 


IIISTOHY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


or  Independents,  it  is  no  obstacle.  The  Presbyterian  may  be  a  Presbyte- 
rian still;  the  Independent  "or  Anabaptist  (Baptist)  use  his  own  modfe- 
■of  worship";  so  may  the  Quaker  &c."  Such  a  mixed  Society  as  this. 
is  no  Church  of  Christ.  God's  Church  does  not  keep  such  a  disorder- 
ly house  as  this.  He  opens  no  such  door  of  admission  into  his  Church . 
He  sets  no  such  dragnet* 

Section  III. 

Up  to  Sept.  10,  1784,  fifty-five  years  after  the  first  rise  of  Methodism. 
Mr.  Wesley  did  ail  that  he  could,  to  keep  his  Societies-both  in  England 
and  America,  in  close  connexion  with  the  Episcopal  Church. 

In  his  letter  of  Sept.  10,  1784,  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "for  many  years,  T 
have  been  importuned,  from  time  to  time,  to  exercise  the  right,  by 
ordaining  part  of  my  travelling  Preachers.  But  I  have  still  re- 
fused, not  only  for  peace  sake,  but  because  I  was  determined  as  little 
as  possible,  to  violate  the  established  order  of  the  Church  to  which  I 
belonged." 

Here  it  is  conceded  by  Mr.  Wesley,  that  there  was  no  Methodist 
Church  in  England  or  America  at  the  date  of  this  letter,  (1784.)  His 
Societies,  Ms  Preachers,  and  he,  (John  Wesley)  still  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  England  !  Mr.  Wesley  lived  and  died  a  member  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  he  never  separated  from  it.  Although  the  father 
and  founder  of  Schismatics,  he  never  became  one  himself !  Methodist 
generally  think  Mr.  Wesley  was  a  Methodist  in  the  same  sense  that 
they  are.  He  never  ivas  a  member  of  the  so  called,  "Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church/'  His  societies  in  England  have  not  to  this  day,  as- 
sumed the  style  and  name  of  a  Church,  they  are  still  called  So- 
cieties. 

The- announcement  of  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Wesley  never  was  a  Metho- 
dist in  the  same  sense  that  they  are,  will  be  strange  news  to  Episco- 
pal Methodists  !  What !  Old  Bro,  Wesley  never  an  Episcopal  Metho- 
dist !  ?  I  thought  he  was  the  father  and  founder,  and  just  such  a 
Methodist  as  I  am  !  Not  he  !  Mr.  Wesley  lived  and  died  a  member  b  f 
the  Church  of  England.  In  a  sermon  "on  Schism,"  Mr.  Wesley  says  r 
"I  am  now,  and  always  have  been  from  my  youth,  a  member  and 
minister  of  the  Church  of  England.  And  I  have  no  desire,  nor  design  to 
separate  from  it,  till  my  soul  separates  from  my  body."  He  kept  his 
purpose,    Wesley's  Sermons,  v.  2,  38G.    So  far  was  Mr.  Wesley  from 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


being  a  Methodist  in  the  sense  that  persons  are  members  of  the  Metho-1 
dist  Church,  he  was  actually  sorry  the  separation  of  his  Societies  from 
the  Church  of  England  ever  took  place!  Dr.  Coke,  in  his  letter  to 
Bishop  White  {which  is  now  before  me)  says.  "And  this  I  am  certain 
of— that  he  (Wesley)  is  now  sorry  for  the  separation!!"  This  letter  of  Dr. 
Coke  to  Bishop  White,  was  written  after  Wesley  was  dead,  but  before 
Coke  heard  of  it. 

Section  IV. 

If  the  Church  of  England  in  which  Mr.  Wesley  lived  and  died,  was 
a  true  Church  of  Christ,  Methodist  had  no  right  to  leave  it,  and  found 
a  new  sect.  It  was  causing  divisions,  for  which  Paul  tells  us  to 
"mark"  and  "avoid"  them,  Eom.  xvi,  17. 

If  the  Episcopal  Church  is  a  gospel  Church.  Methodist  are  un" 
waratable  Schismatics,  John  Wesley  being  judge.  By  Schism  is  meant, 
separating  from  the  gospel  Churchy 

Mr.  Wesley  says  of  Schisms.  "For  how  little  a  thing  soever  it  may 
seem,  and  how  innocent  soever  it  may  be  accounted,  Schism,  even  in 
this  sense,  (leaving  the  Church)  is  both  evil  in  itself,  and  productive 
of  evil  consequences."  Sermon  on  Schism  v.  2,  p.  334.  Again  Mr. 
Wesley  says,  "to  separate  ourselves  from  a  body  of  living  Christians 
with  whom  we  were  before  united,  is  a  grievous  breach  of  the  law  of 
love."  Ibid.— Again  says  Mr.  Wesley  "Take  care  how  you  rend  the 
body  of  Christ  by  separating  from  yovr  brethren.  It  is  an  evil  in 
itself.  It  is  a  sore  evil  in  its  consequences  &c."  Ibid. — Again  says 
Mr.  Wesley,  "Suppose  the  Church  does  not  require  me  to  do  anything 
which  the  Scripture  forbids,  or  to  omit  any  thing  which  the  Scripture 
enjoins,  it  is  then  my  indispensable  duty  to  contine  therein.  And  if 
I  separate  from  it,  without  any  such  necessity,  I  am  justly  chargea- 
ble with  all  the  evils  consequent  upon  that  separation."  Ibid  v.  2,  p. 
387.  If  it  be  an  evil  to  separate  from  the  Church,  how  much  greater 
the  evil  when  we  add  to  that,  the  setting  up  of  a  new  sect,  or  denomi- 
nation ! 

Mr.  Wesley  believed  the  Episcopal  Church  to  be  a  gospel  Church, 
Jior  he  lived  and  died  a  member  of  it,  and  Drs.  Coke,  Asbury,  and  their 
coadjutors  believed  the  same,  and  yet  they  separated  from  it,  became 
guilty  of  Schism,  and  then  added  to  this  evil^  a  still  greater  one,  that 
of  originating  a  new  sect,  and  calling  it  a  Church  !  If  then  the  Epis- 
copal Church  is  a  true  gospel  Church,  Methodist,  are  to  be  "marked" 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


11 


hnd  "avoided"  for  causing  a  division  by  leaving  it,  and  forming 
themselves  into  a  Methodist  Church. 

If,  however,  the  Church  of  England  is  not  a  true  gospel  Church,  it 
follows  that  its  offspring,  Methodism,  cannot  be.  "An  evil  tree  can- 
not bring  forth  good  fruit."  The  Sprout  will  partake  of  the  nature  of 
the  root.  "Who  can  bring  forth  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean? — 
Not  one."  Job.  xiv,  4.    No  stream  can  rise  higher  than  its  fountain. 

The  Episcopal  Church  as  it  is  called,  is  a  daughter  of  Rome,  it  is  un- 
deniably the  offspring  of  papal^and  apostate  Rome.  "The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church"  as  it  is  called,  is  the  daughter  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  Wh.o  set  up  the  Church  of  England.  Henry  VIII,  or  the 
God  of  heaven  ?  Who  set  up  Methodism,  John  Wesley,  or  the  God  of 
heaven  ?  That  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  neither  of  them  is  evident. — - 
Lie  never  set  up  but  one  and  that  was  to  "stand  for  ever,"  Dan.  ii, 
44.    Jesus  Christ  is  the  head  of  his  Church,  see  Eph.  ii,  23.  Col.  v,  10. 

Henry  the  VIII  declared  himself  the  head  of  the  Church  of  England, 
when  he  threw  off  the  Roman  Catholic  yoke,  and  organized  the  Epis- 
copal Church. 

If  we  admit  that  the  Episcopal  is  a  true  gospel  Church,  Methodists 
are  to  be  "marked"  and  "avoided"  for  leaving  it !  If  it  is  not  a  true 
Church,  its  offspring,  Methodism  cannot  be  !  !  Either  horn  of  this  di- 
lema,  is  fatal  to  the  claims  of  Episcopal  Methodisn,  Consequently  they 
are  not  a  true  Church  of  Christ. 

Section  V. 

Methodism,  though  introduced  into  the  United  States  in  176G,  was 
not  called  a  Church,  and  did  not  exercise  the  functions  of  one,  until 
A.  D.  1784. 

The  first  Methodist  Society  was  established  in  the  City  of  New  York, 
in  1766.  The  first  preacher  was  Philip  Embury,  though  he  was  a 
preacher  when  he  left  England,  upon  reaching  this  country  and  find- 
ing no  Methodists  he  relapsed.  Soon  after,  an  Irish  woman  who  was 
a  zealous  follower  of  Mr.  Wesley,  came  to  New  York  ;  and  hearing  of 
Mr.  Embury's  declension,  fired  with  indignation  she  entered  the 
room  where  Mr.  Embury  and  others  were  assembled,  and  snatched, 
the  cards  with  which  they  were  playing,  and  threw  them  into  the  fire. 
She  then  turned  to  Mr.  Embury  and  said,  "you  must  preach  to  us,  or 
we  shall  all  go  to  hell  together."  Mr.  Embury,  then  passed  from,  the 
card  table  to  the  pulpit,  and  formed  the  first  Methodist  Society  that 


12 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


was  ever  in  the  United  States  !  See  Cook's  Estimate  of  Methodism, 
p.  231.  In  England,  Methodism  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Wesley  rifak 
yeavs  before  he  claims  that  he  was  a  cenverted  man  !  In  America  the 
first  Society  was  raised  by  Mr.  Embury,  who  as  has  just  beeu  shown, 
passed  by  the  admonition  of  a  woman,  from  the  card  table  to  the  pul- 
pit, and  soon  formed  a  Society  ! ! 

Up  to. this  time  there  was  no  Methodist  Church,  either  in  England 
or  America.  They  were  merely  Societies  in  the  Church  of  England- 
Even  to  the  present  day,  Methodism  in  England,  does  not  claim  to  he  a 
Church. 

Br.  Bascom,  afterwards  a  Methodist  bishop  says,  "I«will  not  dwell 
on  the  fact  that  the  Methodists  have  never  assumed  the  style  of  a 
Church  in  Europe."  In  the  Mutual  Rights.  That  God  ever  employ- 
ed unconverted  men  to  set  up  a  gospel  Church  in  his  name  is  an  idea 
too  absurd  to  be  believed.  Yet  if  Methodism  is  a  Church  of  God,  it 
was  commenced  by  unconverted  men  ! 

<•  The  first  regular  conference  held  in  America,  convened  in  Philadel- 
phia July  4,  1773,  but  as  yet,  it  did  not  claim  to  be  a  Church. — 
They  were  still  members  of  the  Church  of  England  and  receive  1 
the  ordinances  there  ."©a 

Section  YI. 

The  fourth  rise  of  Methodism  took  place  in  1784,  on  the  25  th  day  of 
December,  in  the  City  of  Baltimore.  At  that  time,  there  Societies 
were  transmuted  into  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States." 

i^^^Before  this  day,  such  a  thing  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  never  heard  of 

Mr.  Inskip,  a  Methodist  historia*n,  says,  "at  this  Conference  in  1773 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
Methodists,  were  formerly  recognised  and  adopted.  They  also,  con- 
tinues Mr.  Inskip,  "agreed  unanimously  not  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments, and  all  were  exhorted  to  attend  the  Church  (of  England)  and 
to  receive  the  ordinances  there,"    History  of  Methodism. 

Notice,  1.  As  yet,  they  did  not  claim  to  be  a  Church,  for  Mr.  Inskip 
tells  us,  they,  (Methodists)  did  not  administer?  the  sacraments. 

Notice,  2.  'They  received  the  ordinances,  (Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Sapper)  in  the  Church  of  England. 

Notice,  3.  Methodists  still  recognised  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley. 


HISTORY  OS  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM,  $S 

4.  27m*  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Methodists,  were  recog- 
nized and  adopted. 

Notice,  5,  Before  this  we  hear  nothing,  not  even  one  letter,  sylla- 
ble, or  word,  about  a  Methodist  Church,  we  are  simply  told  "the 
Methodists"  did  thus  and  so  I 

Notice,  6.  "The  Methodists"  had  no  ordiances!  No,  not  one,  in  1773!! 

Even  as  late  as  December  the  24,  1784,  there  was  not,  and  never  had 
been  seen  or  heard  of,  any  such  orginzatiens  as  "the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.5 '  Up  to  that  day,  no  human  ear  ever  heard  the  sound 
of  these  words  !  But  listen  !  In  the  course  of  the  next  day,  Decem- 
ber the  25th  1784— -What  sound  is  that !  Hark  !  It  is  the  sound  of 
"the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States!"  "For  on 
that  day,  then  and  there,  did  about  Sixty  of  Mr.  Wesley's  traveling 
preachers  (from  whom  every  local  preacher  and  private  member  was- 
■shut  out)  by  a  mere  vote,  transform  themselves  into  "the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  of  the  United  States  !" 

Did  this  make  them  a  gospel  Church  ?    Does  not  every  person  know 
that  naming  a  thing  does  not  create  it,  or  change  its  character? 

After  this  magic  vote,  did  they  possess  any  principle,  or  any  scrips 
ture  warrant,  that  they  did  not  before  ?  Not  one  !  They  had  adapted3 
their  doctrine  and  discipline  eleven  years  before,  and  yet  by  voting 
themselves  at  this  time  into  what  they  called  a  Church,  ecmed&s  the 
fact,  that  in  their  own  estimation,  they  were  not  a  Church  before  !  I 
have  already  proved  that  they  never  claimed  to  be  a  Church,  until  'this 
magic  vote,  in  1784.  Does,  or  can  any  reflecting  person*  believe  that 
a  true  gospel  Church,  was  ever  voted  into  existence  1:  Best  the  unini- 
tiated, should  think  I  am  jesting,  when  I  assert,  that  si  was  by  a 
mere  vote  of  Sixty  peachers,  that  "the  Methodist,  Episcopal  Church"1 
as  it  is  called,  come  into  existence,  I  will  prov-e  it.  4<4at  this  confer- 
ence (1? '84,)  we  formed  ovrselves  into  a  regular  Church,  by  the  name  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." — Lee* s,  Wis*. of  Methodism* 

In  his  published  Journal,  Mr.  Astray,  says,  ''Ilriday  24th  (Decem- 
ber) rode  to  Baltimore  where  we  met  a?/eu>  preachers-;  it  was  agrees  * 
to  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church." 

Notice,  two  Methodist  witnesses  say,  we  formed  ourselves  into  a  Church 
<&c.,  that  is  the  Conference.  Every  locaSpeacher  and;  privite  memHeva 
was  left  out !    If  this  was  not  a  sham  Church  organization^  it  is  Jjard 


14 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM, 


to  conceive  of  one  that  would  be.  It  was  no  more  a  gospel  Church 
after  this  vote,  than  before.  It  is  no  more  a  true  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ,  than  it  would  be  if  a  Bible,  Temperance,  Missionary,  or  tract 
Sjociety  was  to  vote  itself  into  a  Church,  and  call  itself  the  Bible,  Tem- 
perance, Missionary,  or  Tract  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States' 
The  only  difference  that  existed  before,  and  after,  this  magic  vote. 
was,  that  before  Mr.  Wesley  sent  over  Dr.  Coke  with  instructions  to 
ordain  preachers  and  administer  the  ordainances,  by  Mr.  Wesley's: 
authority  they  were  not  allowed  to  administer  the  ordinances!  Afterwards, 
by  Mr.  Wesley' 's authority ;  and  his  alone,  they  had  this  privilege  granted' 
See  Mr.  "Wesley's  letter  of  recommendation,  dated  Bristol,  Sept.  10, 
1784.  For  fifty  five  years  Mr.  Wesley  kept  his  preachers  from  admin- 
istering the  ordinances. 

j§|^  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  same  authority  that  forbid,  and 
'prevented  the  Methodist  from  administering  the  ordinances,  from  1720. 
to  1784,  gave  them  authority,  in  1784  to  administer  them 

There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Bible  that  warrents  John  Wesley  to 
set  up  Societies,  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  after  remaining  there 
for  fifty  five  years  ;  for  about  sixty  of  his  travelling  preachers  with 
Dr.  Coke  and  Asbury  at  their  head,  to  form  themselves  into  a  gospel 
Church,  with  the  high  sounding  title  of  "the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States." 

The  gospel  Church  was  set  up  by  the  God  of  heaven,  one  thousand 
seven  hundred  years  before  John  Wesley  was  born !  The  gospel 
Church  was  set  up  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  about  A.  D.  33,  of  this 
Church  it  is  said  "it  shall  never  be  destroyed,  it  shall  stand  forever,''' 
Dan.  ii,  44. 

The  forming  of  Societies,  in  the  Church  of  England  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
and  afterwards  changing  them  by  a  vote  into  the  so  called  "Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  by  Mr.  Wesley's  preachers,  seems  to  imply  that  in 
their  estimation,  the  Church  set  up  by  the  God  of  heaven,  had  become 
extinct,  that  the  gates  of  hell  had  prevailed  against  it,  or  that  they  could 
make  an  improvement  upon  it  ! 

The  success  of  the  American  revolution,  which  resulted  in  freeing 
this  country  from  England,  brought  about  the  organization  of  "the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  as  it  is  called.— See  Wesleifs  Letter. 

It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  this  event  brought  about  this  organiza- 
tion, when  it  is  a  known  fact  that  during  this  war  the  traveling  preach- 
ers were  generally  Tories,    AH,  but  one,  that  come  from  England. 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


15 


went  bad:  upon  the  breaking  out  of  the  war.  Such  were  their  tory 
propensities,"  that  they  had  to  fly  from  the  country — Mr.  Asbury 
who  figured  so  prominently  afterwards  among  the  Methodists,  conceal- 
ed himself  'for  a  season  in  the  State  of  Dele-ware."  Methodist  Prot. 
Manual,  p.  5G.  Mr.  Wesley  spoke  and  wrote  against  the  American 
Revolution,  he  justified  the  tax  on  tea,  &c,  and  profered  to  his  Ma- 
jesty, his  services,  to  raise  recruits  for  his  army ! — See  Southey's  Life 
of  Wesley,  p.  306,  in  Cooke's  estimate  of  Methodism  p.  67. 

As  soon  as  Independence  was  obtained,  and  the  Church  of  England 
ceased  to  be  a  national  establishment,  Mr.  Wesley  sent  over  Dr.  Coke 
to  ordain  Ministers  for  the  Societies  and  act  as  Superintendent.  Tnif 
was  done  in  Sept.  1784,  See  Wesley's  letter  of  Sept.  10. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Dr.  Coke  in  this  country,  he  and  Mr.  Asbury. 
together  with  about  sixty  of  Mr.  Wesley's  travelling  preachers  as  ha> 
already  been  shown,  met  in  Baltimore,  and  voted  themselves  into  "the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

What  Special  qualification  or  authority  had  these  sixty  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's preachers  to  found  a  Church?  Under  whose  authority  did  they 
act  ?  From  whom  did  they  receive  their  commission  ?  Answer,  from 
John  Wesley*.  In  1784.  Dr.  Coke  and  Asbury  as  joint  Superinten- 
dents, were  clothed  with  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  to  ordah\  m  inisters  for 
the,  Societies,  &c. 

Did  Mr.  Wesley  authorize  Dr.  Coke  and  Asbury  to  convert  his  So- 
cieties and  Ministers,  into  a  Church  ?  With  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  of 
recommendation  before  me,  I  say  he  did  not.  They  were  authorised 
to  act  as  joint  Superintendents  to  supply  the  people  with  preachers,  that 
he  did  not  authorise  them  to  set  up  a  Church,  is  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing part  of  his  letter,  "whereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  Southern 
provinces  of  North  America  who  desire  to  continue  under  my  care, 
and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land »fec." 

Dr.  Coke  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  White  says,  "I  am  not  sure  but  i 
went  further  in  tJie  separation  of  our  Church  in  America  than  Mr. 
Wesley  from  whom  I  received  my  commission,  did  intend."  Again 
says  Dr.  Coke  in  that  letter,"  "I  am  certain  that  he  (Mr.  Wesley)  i? 
now  sorry  for  the  separation.'"  Again  says  Dr.  Coke  in  that  letter 
"In  Europe,  (England)  where  some  steps  had  been  taken  tending  tc 

*  *  See  Dr.  Ccke's  Letter  to  Bishop  White, 


t6 


HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  SfE'MoMsM.- 


'  a,  separation  (of  Mr.  Wesley's  Societies  from  the  Church  of  England,)' 
'all  is  at  aii  end.    Mr.  Wesley  is  a  determined  enemy  of  it  J' 

By  setting  up  a  Church  they  violated  their  instructions  in  two  par- 
ticulars. 1.  This  took  the  people  from  under  the  care  of  Mr.  Wesley. 
2.  It  deprived  them  of  the  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England. 

3  Dr.  Coke  admits,  that  he  went  further  than  Mr.  Wesfey  intended. 

4.  Dr.  Coke  informs  us,  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  sorry  fh-at  the  Separa- 
tion had  taken  place ! 

He  had  cause  to  be  sorry,  for  he  had  set  on  foot  an  awful  Schism, 
Iiis  coadjutors  had  perfected  it !  they  had  assumed  a  prerogative  that 
belongs  to  God.  He  alone  has  the  right  to  set  up  a  Church.  Wesley 
and  his  preachers,  had  no  more  divine  right  to  found  a  Church  than 
LaoZy  Huntingdon,*  Ann  Lee,  or  the  Irish  woman,  that  frightened  Mr. 
.Embury  from  the  card  table  to  the  pulpit. 

Section  VII. 

That  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  not  a  true  Church  of  Jesus' 
Christ,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  is  of  human  origin. 

By  most  Methodist  writers,  Mr.  Wesley  is  acknowledged  to  be  the 
-  'father  and  founder  of  Methodism,"  four  years  after  Methodism  claim- 
ed to  be  a  Church,  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  letter  to  Asbury,  said  "I  am 
rander  God  the  father  of  the  whole  family." 

*'At  this  conference,  (1784)  we  formed  ourselves  into  a  regular 
f  'hurch." — Lee's  His.  of  Methodism. 

Mr.  Asbury,  says,  "It  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves  into  an  Episco- 
pal Church." — See  his  Journal. 

It  is  here  conceded,  that  they  formed  themselves  into  a  Church,  it  is 
consequently  of  human  origm. 

Rev.  A.  McCaine,  a  Methodist,  says,  "It  has  been  universally  ad- 
mitted, that  Messrs.  John  and  Charles  Wesley  were  the  founders  of 
that  religious  denomination  of  people,  called  Methodists"  Defence  of 
'the  Truth  &c,  p.  11  As  the  Wesley's  are  the  founders  of  the  denom- 
ination called  Methodist,  it  is  of  human  origin. 

Isaac  Taylor  a  Methodist,  in  his  work  on  "Wesley  and  Methodism," 

j>.  199,  says,  '**  Wesley  ism  is  a  Scheme — it  is  the  product  of  uninspired 

intelligence,  and  therefore  has  its  defects." 

*Lady  Huntingdon,  aad  Ann  Lee,  did  become  the  leadersand  founders  of  religious  sects  or 
denominations.  Each  of  them  had  as  good  a  right  to  found  a  new  Church,  as  John  Wesley 
Coke;  Asbury  &  Co.,  and  so  had  Joe  Smith.  Every  person  that  sets  up  a  new  religions  sect 
mid  calls  it  a  Church,  assumes  the  prerogative  of  God,  who  alone  has  the  right  to 
found  a  Church. 


HISTORY  QF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


17 


God's  Cbureli  is  not  a  human  Scheme,  it  is  not  the  product  of  unin- 
spired intelligence,  it  has  no  defects.  As  Methodism  is  composed  of 
nil  three  of  these,  it  is  not  a  true  Church  of  God. 

Again  says  Mr.  Taylor,  p.  214,  "But  Wesleyism  (Methodism)  is 
the  work  of  man." 

Dr.  Hinkle,  a  Methodist,  in  his  "Platform  of "  Methodism"  pays, 
''Methodism  has  from  theb  eginning  been  in  a  most  striking  manner  the 
child  of  Providence.  Nearly  all  its  peculiar  characteristics  were 
adopted  without  any  previous  design  on  the  part  of  the  instrumentali- 
ties by  whose  agency  it  wa3  brought  into  existence,  as  circumstances 
seemed  to  require,  and  without  any  expectation  of  their  becoming  ele- 
ments in  a  permanent  ecclesiastical  constitution." 

God's  Church  was  not  dependent  upon  "circumstances"  in  its  setting 
up — Methodism  was,  therefore  it  is  not  of  God,  but  of  man.  God  did 
not  set  up  his  Church  by  accident,  "without  any  expectation"  of  it — 
Methodists  did,  therefore  it  is  not  a  Church  of  God,  but  of  man.  The 
Church  of  Christ  was  not  set  up  without  any  previous  design" — 
Methodism  was,  therefore  it  is  not  of  God,  it  is  of  human  origin, 
an  accident. 

Mr.  Inskip,  a  Methodist,  in  his  History  of  Methodism  says,  "As  a 
creature  of  Providence,  Methodism,  in  her  peculiar  external  organiza- 
tion, h as.  adapted  Jierself  to  the  exigences  of  the  times  *  *  *  and  hence 
though  constantly  changing,"  &c. 

The  Church  of  Christ  in  its  organization  did  not  "adapt  herself  to 
the  exigences  of  the  times;"  the  Methodists  did,  therefore,  theirs  is  not 
a  Church  of  Christ,  it  is  of  human  origin, 

The  Church  of  Christ  is  not  "constantly  changing,"  the  Metho- 
dist Chu.rch  is,  therefore  it  is  of  human  origin.  Their  discipline  is  sub- 
ject to  change  every  four  years.  Again,  Mr.  Inskip  says,  "To  meet 
the  emergency  &c.  God  raised  up  a  company  of  great  men — and  in- 
ventive genius" 

After  mentioning  J.  W eslcy,  Whitefield,  C,  Wesley,  Coke,  Asbury, 
Clarke,  and  Benson,  Mr.  Inskip  says,  " These  men  devised  this  power- 
ful instrumentality  &c,"  that  is  Methodism, 

The  God  of  hoaven  set  up  his  Church  by  inspired  men.  The  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  was  set  up  by  men  of  inventive  genius,  there- 
fore it  is  not  a  true  Church  of  Christ. 


18 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


The  Church  of  God  was  "devised"  by  Himself,  the  Methodist  Church 
■was  "devised  .by  men  of  "inventive  genius"  consequently,  it  is  of  hu- 
man origin,  a  human  Society.  Again,  on  p.  65,  Mr.  Ins  kip  says,  "A 
more  wise  or  better  arranged  system  of  religious  and  moral  enterprise, 
could  not  have  been  conceived.  Of  course  like  all  other  human  insti- 
tutions, it  has  its  defects  and  imperfections." 

Here  it  is  admitted  by  a  leading  Methodist  Historian,  that  Metho- 
dism was  "conceived''  by  man,  that  it  is  a  "human  institution." — - 
Methodism  is  a  "human  institution,"  therefore  it  is  not  a  Church  of 
Gcd.    It  is  only  a  "moral  enterprise." 

On  page  39,  Mr.Inskip  says,  "Methodists  ate  the  followers  of  Wesley" 
The  members  of  the  Church  of  God,  follow  Christ.  Methodists  "fol- 
low Wcoiey"  therefore  they  are  not  a  Church  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Bangs  in  Original  Church,p.  09.  Says,  Methodist3  acknowledge 
'Ifr.  Wesley  as  their  spiritual  father  and  founder." 

Mr.  Gjrrie,  a  Methodist,  in  his  History  of  Methodism,  p.  217,  says, 
Mr.  Wesley  "was  the  founder— expounder — and  originator  of  much 
thai  is  peculiar  to  the  ecclesiastical  polity  &c.,  of  the  great  Methodist 
"body  in  the  world." 

Consequently  it  is  of  human  origin. 

In  the  North  British  Review,  it  is  said  "Wesley  did  not  profess  to 
be  organizing  a  Church,  on  a  Scriptural  basis.  His  Institute' (Metho- 
dism) was  the  product  of  h  is  own  wisdom  and  sagacity,  and  must  be 
subject  to  the  fluctuations  and  instability  of  all  merely  human  things." 

As  Methodism  is  merely  a  "human  thing,"  it  is  not  a  Church  of 
Christ. 

As  Mr.  Wesley  was  the  "head"  of  Methodism,  and  was  gladly  ac- 
knowledged by  "his  followers"  as  their  founder  and  rightful  director, 
it  is  not  a  true  Church.  No  gospel  Church,  will  admit  as  its  "head," 
"founder"  or  "rightful  director,"  any  human  being,  Christ  is  the 

only  "head,  founder  and  rightful  director"  of.  his  Church. 

Kev.  A.  Stevens,  in  his  Church  Polity,  published  by  the  Methodist 
Book  concern  :  says,  "At  the  head,  of  this  syltem  (of  Methodism)  Sh  od 
"Wesley,  gladly  acknowledged  by  the  inert  ash  g  thousands  of  His  fol- 
lowers, as  the  founder,  and  rightful  directtt  of  the  whole." 

Again  Mr.  Stevens  says:  "Methodism  pretends  to  no  divine  right." 

I  have  fully  established  the  fact,  that  Methodism  is  of  human  origin,hu 
and  consequently  is  not  a  Church  of  Christ. 


HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


19 


Section7  VIII. 

The  organization  of  the  Methodiut  J0^i.--copal  Church;  is  too  modern, 
to  be  a  Church  of  Christ. 

The  Chur:;h  of  God  was,  by  Ilim,  sot  up  "  in  the  days  these  kings  " 
Dan.  2  :  4 1,  that  is,  of  the  Roman  kings.  The  Jews  were  under 
tribute  to  the  Caesars,  at  the  setting  up  of  the  gospel  Church,  Mark, 
xii  :  14. 

About  A.  D.  33,  the  God  of  Heaven  set  up  the  Gospel  Ohureh. —  . 
About  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty  years  afterwards,  "  th<* 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  "  was  voted  into  o,;i.-;!.ouce  by  sixty  of 'Mr. 
We  ley's  traveling  preachers  ! 

It  dates  as  Methodism,  from  1720,  and  as  a  Church,  from  1784,  just 
aeventy-four  years  ago  !  Unless  Methodists  can  show  a  Scripture 
warrant,  that  Drs.  Coke,  and  Asbury,  and  the  sixty  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
preachers,  who  voted  themselves  into  a  Church,  were  authorized  to  set 
up  a  Church  in  1784,  their  claim  to  be  a  true  Church  of  Christ,  is  not 
valid.  Instead  of  showing  a  divine  warrant  to  organize  a  Church..  Dr. 
Stevens  says,  "  It  pretends  to  no  divine  r'ujld.  "  consequently  it  is  not 
a  Church  of  Christ. 

Section  IX. 

The  lineage  of  "  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  is  unfavorable  to 
its  being  a  true  Church.  Mr.  Wesley,  it*  "  father  and  founder/' was 
a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  g.<£f°IIe  lived  and  died  a  membor 
of  it.  Ths  Episcopal  Church  is  a  daughter  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  "  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  "  is  a  daughter  of  the  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  only  way  that  it  can  claim  descent  from  the  Church  set  up  by 
the  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  is,  to  admit  that  Methodism,  as  a  Church, 
dwelt  in  the  Cnurch  ofEngiana  from  A.  D.  1000,  to  A.  D.  1784,  a  pe- 
riod of  184  years,  and  that  it  dwelt  previously,  in  the  Romish  Aposta- 
cy,  for  at  least  1300  years".  That  Methodism  did  dwell  in  the  Church 
of  England  for  iifty-five  years,  has  already  been  shown.  Methodism, 
cannot  prove  descent  from  the  witnessmg  Church  that  fled  into  tho 
wilderness  from  the  persecuting  power  of  Rome.  Methodist  had  no 
existence  before  the  Reformation,  and  none  afterwards  as  a  Church- 
for  200  years. 

All  know  the  day  when  Henry  the  VIII,  out  of  love  for  the  beauti- 
ful Anne,  threw  off  the  yoke  of  the  Pope,  and  took  upon  himself  tha 


20 


HISTRQY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


title  of  "  the  supreme  head  of  the  Church, "  in  consequence  of  a  quar- 
rel between  him  and  the  Pope,  about  his  marriage.  Again,  all  know 
the  day  when  Mr.  Wesley's  societies  came  out  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, by  a  vote  of  sixty  preachers,  and  by  that  magic  vote  became  known 
as  "  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  !  '* 

As  the  Church  of  England  came  out  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  came  out  of  that,  the.  unfavorableness 
o€  its  lineage,  to  be  a  true  Church,  is  fully  established.  Methodists 
can  claim  no  other  descent,  for  their  "  father  and  founder, 19  John 
"Wesley,  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  so  were  Meth- 
odists generally,  from  1729  to  1784,  a  period  of  fifty-five  years. 

Section"  X. 

In  many  respects,  "  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  resembles  its 
parentage,  in  its  doctrines,  ceremonies,  &c. 

Dr.  Bond,  a  Methodist,  in  his  "  Economy  of  Methodism,  "  p.  20, 
eays,  "  Our  doctrines  are  avowedly  those  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  " 

Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  letter  of  Sept.  10.  1784,  says  of  the  American 
Methodist, s  "  They  desire  to  continue  under  my  care,  and  s^ll  adhere 
to  tho  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England.  " 

Again,  Mr.  Wesley,  in  a  subsequent  letter,  addressed  to  Drs.  Coke, 
Asbury,  &c,  says,  "I  have  prepared  &  liturgy,  little  differing,  from 
that  of  the  Church  of  England,  whicl}  I  advise  all  the  preachers  to 
use,"  &c. 

That  the  Episcopal  prayer-book  is  of  Popish  origin,  that  their  rites 
and  ceremonies  are  taken  from  Rome,  and  that  the  Methodist  doctrines, 
ceremonies,  &c.,are  borrowed  from  the  Church  of  England,  is  a-n  in- 
contestable fact. 

Eev.  E.  T,  Wirkler,  in  his  letters  on  Episcopacy,  in  the  South  Wes- 
tern Baptist  of  1853,  says:  "  The  prayer-book  was  compiled  from  the 
Romish  Missels,"  &c.  Indeed,almost  the  entire  table  of  collects,  now 
contained  in  the  prayer  book,  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Roman  Sa- 
cramentary,  &c.  In  the  Bible,  the  xiy  Psalm  has  seyen  verses,  but 
the  prayer  book,  following  the  old  Romish  service,  gives  it  eleven.  " 

That  the  Methodist  have  compiled  their  articles,  ordination  service, 
matrimony,  service  for  baptism,  the  Lord's  supper,  changing  rites  and 
ceremonies,  fasting  on  Fridays,  &c,  in  a  good  degree,  from  Rome, 
through  the  Church  of  England  will  not  be  denied  by  any  that  will 


HISTOltt  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


23 


compare  them.    That  noiie  may  take  my  ipse  dixit,  Twill  give  an  e 
ample  : 

Romish  Service  for  Marriage. 

The  Vow. — "  I,  Ms;  take  thee,  N.,  to  be  my  wedded  wife,  to  have' 
and  to  hold,  from  this  day  forward,  for  better,  for  worse,  for  richer, 
for  poorer,  in  sickness  and  in  health,  till  death  do  us  part,  if  hoty 
Church  will  permit,  and  thereto  I  plight  thee  my  troth.  " 

Methodist  Service  for  Marriage. 

The  Vow  ; — "  I,  M.,  take  thee,  N.,  to  be  iny  wedded  wife,  to  havd 
and  to  hold,  from  this  day  forward,  for  better,  for  worse,  for  richer^ 
for  poorer,  in  sickness  and  in  health,  to  love  aud  to  cherish,  till  death 
do  us  part,  according  to  God's  holy  ordinance  ;  and  thereto  I  plight 
thee  my  faith. " 

Reader,  did  you  ever  see  a  more  striking  likeness  between  mother] 
daughter  and  grandaughter,  than  exists  between  the  marriage  serviev 
of  the  Romish,  Episcopal  and  Methodist  denominations  ? 

Section  XI. 

The  Church  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  isun- 
scriptural,  Anti-Republican  and  Anti- American. 

1.  It  is  unscriptural.  The  New  Testament  knows  nothing  of  courts 
of  appeal.  In  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Chtirch  there  are 
courts  of  appeal.  An  appeal  may  be  taken  from  a  circuit  rider  to  a 
Quarterly  Conference,  from  that  to  the  Annual  Conference,  from  that 
to  the  General  Conference,  The  New  Testament  furnishes  no  exam- 
ple of  any  such  ecclesiastical  Courts  of  appeal.  An  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  an  individual  Church  to  another  body,  has  no  scripture 
warrant,  yet  this  is  one  of  the  great  peculiarities  of  Methodism  I  The 
only  great  ecclesiastical  body  that  assembled  in  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles, was  at  Jerusalem  when  the  Church  at  Antioch  sent  to  them  for 
udviee-.  They  carried  up  no  case  of  appeal,  they  had  made  no  decision. 
When  this  advisary  counsel  met,  it  consisted  of  the  Apostles,  Elders 
and  the  whole  Church,  they  all  sat  together  and  deliberated  upon  th£ 
question  before  them,  and  they  all  voted,  private  members,  Apostles  and 
Elders.  "  Then  pleased  it  the  Apostles  and  Elders,  with  the  whole 
Church  to  send  chosen  men,  &c,  "  Acts,  xv  :  22.  How  unlike  this  apos- 
tolic counsel,  is  a  Methodist  Conference  !  In  the  former,  minifeteri 
and  private  members  were  seated,deliberated  and  voted  together.  In  t&# 
latter,  every  local  preacher,  and  {private  membtr  is  exelud&d  ! ! 


22 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


The  sight  of  a  local  preacher,  or  private  member  that  ever  held  a  seat 
in  a  Methodist  Annual  or  General  Conference,  -would  be  as  effectual  in 
curing  King's  Evil,  (Scrofula,)  as  the  touch  of  Kings  !  The  sight  of 
a  private  member  or  local  preacher,  that  ever  voted  for  a  delegate  to 
the  Conference,  would  be  as  effectual  in  curing  the  consumption,  as  the 
"  Cherry  Pectoral,  "  or  "  Wister's  Balsam  of  Wild  Cherry  ! " 

In  the  apostolic  age,  all  the  churches  were  independent  bodies,  and 
ca:h  one  exercised  discipline,  independent  of  any  other  Church,  or  ec- 
clesiastical body,  its  own  decisions  were  final,  there  were  no  courts  of 
appeal,  for  proof  of  this,  see  Matt.,  viii :  17  ;1  Cor.,  v  :  18. 

The  Apostolic  Churches  were  independent  bodies,  each  congregation, 
cr  individual  Church  exercised  discipline  for  itsef,  and  was  an  inde- 
pendent Church,  hence  we  read  of  "Churches  of  Asia, "  "  Churches 
*>f  ( talatia,  "  each  congregation  of  Baptized  believers,  was  a  Church, 
there  was  no  such  consolidated  Church  as  the  Church  of  Asia,  the 
Church  of  Galatia,  but  "  the  Churches,  "  ft-om  which  it  is  evident  that 
each  congregation  was  a  Church  of  itself.  How  unlike  this  is  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States.  "  "  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  North"  "  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South." 
At  first,  there  was  but  one  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  the  whole 
United  States  !  Now  since  the  division,  there  are  two  t  I  There  is  not 
a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  North  Carolina  !  There  is  in  the 
whole  State,  hut  a  pkee  of  one  !  !  For  it  takes  all  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences of  preachers,  the  local  preachers,  and  members  of  the  societies, 
to  constitute  "  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,South  !  I"  The  Scrip- 
tures know  nothing  of  such  a  Church  as  this.  They  know  no  gospel 
Church,  where  each  baptized  believing  congregation,  is  not  a  Church 
Of  itself. 

There  never  was  a  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  "as it  is  called, 
organized  or  constituted  in  this  State  !  A  great  to  do,  is  made  of  the 
Dedication  of  a  New  House  for  Worship,  among  the  Methodists,many 
announcements  of  this  kind  are  made  in  their  "  Advocates. "  But  no 
die  ever  saw  it  announced  that  a  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  "  was 
to  be  constituted,  at  any  time  or  place  in  North  Carolina  !  Neithor 
has  any  such  constitution  ever  happened.  After  it  was  over  I  have  seen 
it  announced,  that  at  such  a  time  and  place,  "  a  class,  "  or  "  society,  H 
was  formed  !  A  class  or  society,  is  not  a  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church,' 
and  does  not  claim  to  be.  Methodists  do  not  consider,  or  style,  a  class, 
err  society,  a  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


23 


2  Tile  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,is  antl-repuLli* 
can. 

The  private  members  have  no  vote,  or  voice,  as  to  who  shall  preach 
for  them,  Or  how  much  they  must  pay  them,  their  part  in  the  system 
of  Methodism,  H  to  pay  and  obey.  Obey  all  that  Conference  puts  ia 
the  discipline  every  four  years,  and  pay  the  preachers,  arid  other  ex- 
pense3, without  even  one  vol?,  as  to  whom  they  shall  pay,  or  hovr  much  I 
The  private  members  are  taxed  without  the  right  of  representation. — 
this  is  tyranny.    It  is  anti-republicanism.  ' 

Dr.  Baffcbm,  afterwards  a  bishop  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
says,  "  It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  there  is  no  Church  on  earth,  total- 
ly rejecting  the  representative  principle  in  matters  of  government,  ex- 
cept the  j&omish  and  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  may  indeed  ap- 
pear invidious  to  institute  a  comparison  between  the  Pope  of  Home  and 
his  cardinals,  and  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  traveling  Ministry,  but  the  resemblance,  so  far  as  legislative 
prerogative  is  concerned,  is  exact.  If  this  be  denied,  we  invite  the 
friends  of  the  reigning  state  of  things  to  point  out  the  dissimilarity-" 

Mutual  Rights. 

Dr.  Bascom  asserts  that  the  likeness*'  between  the  leglslatine 
prerogative  of  the  Romish,  and  Methodist  Churches,  "is  exact.  " 
This  will  noh  appear  strange,  when  it  is  recollected,  that  the  parties  are 
somewhat  related. 

This  anti-republican  feature,  is  of  its  "  father  and  founder,  "  John 
Wesley,  and  those  staunch  Britons,  Coke  and  Asbury,  who  were  the 
leading  spirits  in  its  formation.  John  Wesley  denounced  John  Han- 
cock, President  of  the  American  Congress,  as  a  "  smuggler,  "  and  a 
"  felon.  "  lie  says  :  "  I  do  in  this  respect — I  compare  every  smuggler 
to  a  felon — a  private  smuggler  to  a  sneaking  felon,  a  pickpocket — a 
noonday  smuggler  to  a  bold  felon,  a  robber  on  the  highway.  And  if  a 
person  of  this  undeniable  character,  is  made  President  of  a  Congress, 
I  leave  every  man  of  sense  to  determine  what  is  to  be  expected  of 
them."—  Wesley's  Works, 

Again,  Mr.  Wesley  says  :  "  The  supposition  that  the  people  are  the 
origin  ofpfiwer,  is  in  every  way  indefeasible.  You  (Americans,)  pro- 
fess to  be  contending  for  liberty,  it  is  a  vain  empty  profession.  No  go- 
vernments under  Heaven,  are  so  despotic  as  the  Republican  ;  no  subjects 


24 


HISTORY  OE  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM; 


are  governed  in  so  arbitrary  a  manner  as  those  of  a  coininenwealth.'* 

Wesley's  Works. 

From  the  following  words,  Mr.  Wesley  seems  not  to  have  been  mor^ 
friendly  to  religious  liberty,  than  to  civil.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  Mr.  Wesley  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that  all 
American  citizens  were  taxed  to  sustain  it.  Speaking  of  the  American 
Independence,  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "  Probably  that  subtle  spirit  hoped, 
by  adding  to  all  those  other  vices,  the  spirit  of  Independency,  to  have 
overturned  the  dhole  work  of  God,  as  well  as  the  British  Government  im 
North  America."  Mr*  Wesley  evidently  attributes  the  spirit  of  Inde- 
pendence that  freed  us  from  the  tyranny  of  England,  to  the  devil !  Set 
his  Sermons,  vol.  3>  p>  406. 

It  seems  to  me,  that  he  considered  the  whole  work  of  God,  "  to  be 
confined  to  the  established  Church,and  his  infant  child, Methodism, that 
Was  then  nourishing  itself  in  the  bosom  of  that  establishment,  under 
the  name  of  Mr,  Wesley's  Societies,  brt  still  members  of  the  Church 
of  England  I  No  Wonder,  as  has  been  seen,  Mr.  Wesley  offered  hifl 
services  to  His  Majesty*  to  recruit  the  English  army,  to  murder  our 
forefathers  ! 

Many  of  Mr.  Wesley's  preachers,  during  the  Revolutionary  war,— 
were  Tories  and  fled  to  England,  or  took  refuge  among  i^ic  lories,* 

See  Wesley's  Life  of  Asbury. 

No  wonder  that  Methodist  traveling/  preachers,  have  such  an  abhor- 
rence of  Republicanism,  as  still  to  tax  their  people  without  representa- 
tion. 

In  1790,  six  years  after  Methodism  came  to  its  maturity  by  the  mag-* 
ic  vote,  of  sixty  uninspired  preachers  and  was  known  as  a  Church 
bur.  about  one  year  before  his  death',  Mr,  Wesley  writes  to  Mr*  Mason  as 
follows  "  As  long  as  I  live  the  people  shall  have  no  share  in  choosing 
stewards  or  leaders  among  the  Methodist.  We  have  not,  nor  never  had 
any  such  customs.  JGg&T'  We  are  no  republicans,  never  intend  to  bc."'*y8& 
— ■  Wesley, s  works,  v,  7,  p,  98. 

In  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Epicopal  Church,  as  it  is  called, 
there  is  no  representation,  the  traveling  preachers  are  a  self  appointed 
aristocracy,  have  no  const ituants.  The  traveling  ministers  meet  in  con- 
ferencc  and  make,  alter,amend  or  annul,  such  laws,rites  and  ceremonies 


•Among  tha  local  p^paicbsrs,  there  were  some  Whigs. 


HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


&s  suit  themselves,  and  then  publish  them  in  the  Discipline,  making 
It  a  criminal  act  for  any  local  preacher  or  private  member,  to  "  inveigle  " 
against  them,  under  the  penalty,  of  being  reprimanded,  or  excluded; 
while  at  the  same  time,  the  local  preachers  and  private  members  ar£ 
not  represented,  and  have  no  v&te  or  voice  in  said  conference! 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  if  the1  local  Preachers  and  private  member?} 
we  satisfied  to  remain  members  of  this  self-appointed  aristocracy  and 
be  taxed  without  representation>what  is  that  to  me,or  any  other  person? 
There  are  various  reasons,  but  at  present  I  will  confine  myself  to  one, 
This  self  appointed  aristocracy  and  self-created  Church,  claims  that  it 
i«  a  Church  of  the  living  God,  that  it  is  entitled  to  be  recognized  as 
such,  by  all  mankind.  It  demands  that  its  claims  be  admitted,  at 
the  peril  of  our  being  charged  with  being  uncharitable,  selfish,  and 
incorrigible  bigots.  This  being  the  case,  I  have  a  right  to  investigate 
its  claims,  and  state  my  objection  to  it. 

That  the  ministers  in  General  Conference  assembled  are  legislator* 
without  constituents,  was  clearly  proved  by  the  Methodist  Church 
South,  in  the  trial  for  their  part  of  the  Book  fund.  In  the  United 
States'  Court,  Judge  Nelson  presiding,  Mr.  Lord  and  Hon.  Reverly 
Johnson,  were  counsel  for  the  Church  South.  Mr.  Johnson,  in  the  de- 
fence of  their  suit,  said,  "They  (the  preachers),  admit  no  constituents. 
They  resolve  for  themselves  alone,  as  the  possessors  of  ail  ecclesiastical 
power  known  to  the  Methodist  Church,  to  carry  out  the  particular  or- 
ganization authorized  by  John  Wesley*,  without  any  other  authority 
than  his,  and  their  otvn  conviction  that  the  good  of  the  Church  deman- 
ded such  a  special  and  particular  organization." — Church  Property 
case,  p.  328.  Reader,  if  you  are  a  Methodist,  seriously  consider  the 
proceeding  and  following  extracts  : 

Again  Mr.  Johnson  says,  "The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as 
regards  its  government,,  has  been  absolutely,  since  the  days  of  Wesley, 
an  Aristocracy.  JMymen  have  had  and  now  have  720  voice  in  it.  If 
there  is  a  layman  within  the  sound  of  my  voice,  he  knows  he  has  no 
now" 

Again,  Mr.  Johnson,  says,  "It  is  a  body  unlimited  in  the  authority 
to  create,  equally  unlimited  in  the  authority  to  destroy,  responsible 

*Authori*ed  by  John  Wesley,  not  by  tho  God  <.>f  heaven. 


23         ,  HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

only  to  tliclr  consciences  for  the  manner  in  which  either  authority  is 
exercised." — Church  Property,  case  p.  331.  . 

Here  it  is  conceded  by  able  counsel  that  "the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,"  is  an  aristocracy,  hi  which  no  private  member,  or  local 
preacher,  ever. had  a  voice,  "they  the  preachers  admit  no  constituency." 

It  is  also  asserted  by  Mr.  Johnson  that  the  General  Conference  it 
unlimited  in  its  power  to  "create"  or  "destroy"  It  hat,  by  a  vots 
created  itself,  by  a  vote,  it  has  divided  itself,  by  a  vote,  each  of  thesa 
divisions  may  divide  again,  or  if  they  choose  they  may  by  a  vote  anni- 
hilate their  Church  organization  !  For  Mr.  Johnson  says,  their  power 
is  -'unlimited,"  both  "to  create"  and  "to  destroy."  By  a  mere  vote, 
they  may  exist  to  day,  to  morrow,  they  may  not  be  ! 

'No  such  institution  as  this  was  ever  set  up  by  the  God  of  heaven, 
it  is  the  "product,"  the  "scheme"  of  men  of  "inventive  genius."  Can 
any  reflecting  and  unprejudiced  mind  believe,  that  a  religious  Socie- 
ty, that  is  unllmitted  in  it's  power  to  creak,  or  destoy,  is  a  true  and 
Scriptural  Church  of  Christ  ? 

The  Word  of  God  asserts  that  his  Church  "shall  never  be  destoyed,^ 
"shall  stand  forever"  that  the  "gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it." 
If  the  gospel  Church  is  unlimited  in  its  power  to  create  or  destroy,  H 
could  blot  cut  its  existence  by  a  mere  vote  !  !  ! 

•  Mr.  Lord,  who  was  instructed  by  the  same  committee  that  Mr. 
Johnson  was,  said.  "If  that  bod}^  (the  Conference  in  December  1784) 
had  chosen  to  became  Socinion,  if  it  had  chosen  to  adopt  the  Presby- 
terian or  Baptist  forms  either  of  government  or  doctrine,  it  was  in 
their  power  to  do  it.  There  was  no  limit.  They  represented  the 
Church;  tuey  were  riiE  Ciioacir.  *  *  *  The  laity  were  not 
known  &c." — Church  .Property  case  p.  153. 

Mr.  Lord  tells  us,  the  preachers,  the  conference,  "are  the  Church/' 
*'T'he  laity  were  not  known." 

Thai  freeborn  American  citizens  can  consent  to  belong  to  such  an 
Aristocratic,  anti-republican  system  of  Church  government  is  a  mysfc. 
ry.  Many  of  them  are  getting  ashamed  of  their  degraded  position  in 
the  system  of  Methodism,  they  are  beginning  to  awake  up/ and  soon  will 
teach  their  ministers  a  lessen  that  they  will  never  forget.  The  days  ol 
ministerial  despotism  are  numbered.    The  laity  have  too  much  intei- 


HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


27 


egenee  to  submit  to  a  hierarchy,  that  has  "no  constituents"  and  where 
"the  laity  arc  not  known." 

Section  XII. 

With  the  proceeding  and  other  testimony  before  me,  I  am  warran- 
ted in  saying  the  private  members  are  not  in  a  Church  at  all. 

In  order  to  obtain  their  part  of  the  Book  concern,  which  amounted 
to  nearly  half  a  million  of  dollars,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Church 
South,  to  prove  that  the  embodiment  of  Methodism  was  in  the  General 
Conference,  that  it  was  the  Church,  and  had  power  to  divide  independent 
of  the  laity.  By  proving  that  they  had  no  costituents,  that  the  "laity 
were  not  known"  they' gained  their  suit.  As  the  ministers  in  Gcnerai 
Conference  assembled,  "are  the  Church,"  "have  no  constituent?,"  and 
where  "the  laity  were  not  known,"  how  can  it  be  said  that  the  private 
members  and  local  preachers,  who  have  no  seat,  vote  or  voice  there, 
are  in  a  Church  ?  Perhaps  it  may  be  explained  in  this  way,  A.  B.  is 
asked,- "is  your  family  well?"  He  includes  in  his  answer,  all  that 
live  with  him,  whether  they  occupy  apartments  in  the  Big  Uuuse,  or 
in  the  Kitchen.*  The  trayelling.preachers,  including  the  Bishops,  are 
the  "aristocracy,"  and  compose  <"the  Church,"  the  local  preachers  and 
private  members  compose  the  Classes  and  Societies.  J§@f*A  class  or 
Society,  is  not  a  Church,  and  private  member  have  no  membership  any 
where  clse.^-^a  T he  private  members  have  never  been  organized  into 
a  Church.  When  the  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  was  organized 
there  was  not  one  private  member  present ;  for  Mr.  Asbury  soys,  "Wo 
met  a  few  Preachers  ;  it  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal 
Church." — Anbury's  Journal. 

It  was  a  few  preachers,  and  not  the  members  of  the  classes  and  so- 
cieties that  formed  themselves  into  a  Church.  '  ■ 

Again  Mr.  Lee,  in  his  "History  of  Methodism,"  says,  "we  formed 
oui'sdves  into  a  regular  Church"  i.  e.  "we"  the  preachers  formed,  our- 
selves." 

The  fact,  tfyat  private  members  and  local  preachers  are  in  the  bounds 
of  an  Annual  Conference,  and  belong  to  a  class  or  society,  does  not 
prove  that  they  are  members  of  the  Church,  for  it  has  been  shown 
that  "they  (the  General  Conference)  are  the  Church, "  and  "have  no 
constituents."  "The  laity  were  not  known." 
♦Plcaae  pardon  this  homely  and  common  place  illustration. 


2S 


HISTOUY  OF  EPISCOPAL  M^tHODISM. 


It  is  however  said,  the  bishops,  conferences,  traveling  and  local 
preachers,  and  laity,  all  taken  together,  constitute  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  consequently  the  private  members  are  in  the  Mctho" 
dist  Church.  I  have  already  shown,  that  by  proving  the.  reverse  of  this, 
the  Church  South  gained  nearly  half  a  million  of  dollars  !  When 
Methodist  are  striving  for  dollars  and  cents,  the  conference,  the  min- 
isters ''are  the  Church,"  and  "have  no  constituents"  the  "laity  are 
not  known,"  but  when  they  want  members,  &c,  they  have  constituents  % 
the  Societies  are  known,  and  recognised  as  members  !  !  Even  if  it  were 
admitted  that  the  laity  are  members  of  the  so  called,  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  it  would  avail  them  nothing,  for  I  have  abundantly 
fehown  that  it,  is  not  a  Scriptural  Church,  that  it  is  of  human  origin, 
and  was  devised  by  men  of  "inventive  genius"  &c. 

That  private  members  and  local  preachers  are  not  in  a  Church,  ia 
evident  from  the  following  case.  In  the  18  chap,  and  15,  16  and  17, 
verses  our  Saviour  gives  direction  for  the  settlement  of  private  ofe'ices; 
when  other  means  have  failed,  the  offended  brother  is  directed  to  "tell 
it  unto  the  Church."  <  an  a  private  member  of  the  so  called  Metho- 
dist Church  obey  this  command  ?  Can  he  find  the  Methodist  Church? 
Hie  class  is  not  the  Church,  his  society  is  not,  his  preacher  i8  not,  the 
quarterly  conference  ie  not,  as  for  the  conference  it  has  "no  constitu- 
ents," there  the  "laity  are  not  known,"  they  have  no  seat,  vote  or  voice 
there  !  Methodist  cannot  obey  the  Saviour's  command,  "tell  it  to  the 
'Church,"  consequently  they  are  not  in  a  Church  !  All  that  are  in  a 
VhvrcJi  can  easily  find  it. 

If  the  members  of  the  classes  and  societies,  are  members  of  "the  Meth 
dist  Episcopal  Church,"  as  it  is  called,  it  is  somehow  in  this  way,  they 
are  tied  to  it  by  a  long  rope*  that  reaches  from  the  General  Conference, 
"the  Church"  whero  "the  laity  are  not  known,"  to  the  classes'.  At  the 
$>aying  and  obeying  end  of  the  rope  (System)  the  private  members  and 
local  preaehdrs  are  fastened  in  the  first 1  Jcnot.  The  second  knot  contains* 
the  class  leaders,  immediately  over  the,  people.  The  third  Jcnot  contains 
the  Circuit  Eiders,  over  the  class  leaders.  The  fourth  Jcnot  contains 
the  Presiding  Elders,  over  tJie  circuit  Eiders.  The  fifth  Jcnot  contains 
the  bishops  over  the  Elders,  circuit  Riders  &c.  The  sixth  Jcnot,  con- 
tains the  Annual  Conferences  headed  by  one  bishop,  which  regulates 

*i'leatio  pardon  th •  s  unclaseic,  figurative  illustration. 


HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHOE^SM.  29 

all  the  knots  below.  The  seventh  kfyot,  ties  the  bishops,  Annual'  Con- 
ferences, travelling  preachers,  class  leaders,  local  preachers,  and  laitj 
to  the  General  Conference. 

Section  XIII. 

The  unsciptural  membership  of  "the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church'*" 
is  not  favorable  to  its  being  a  true  Church  of  Christ. 

The  Scriptures  represent  the  Church  as  composed  of  persons  who 
are  "born  again,"  new  creatures,  "lively  stones,"  "delivered  from 
the  power  of  darkness  and  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear 
Son."  "Made  meet  to  be  partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the  Saint* 
in  light^'  "believers,"  &c. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost  we  have  a  full  development  of  the  Churcix 
of  Christ.    See  Acts,  ii,  37,  38,  41,  44. 

1.  The  word  was  preached.  2,  The  people  were  powerfully  awa- 
kened. 3.  Peter  said  to  them  repent  and  be  baptized  &c.  4.  They 
that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  and  added  to  the  Church. 
5.  "And  all  that  bglieved  were  together." 

This  Jerusalem  Church,  evidently  consisted  of  believers  only,  fop 
we  are  told,  that  "all  that  believed  were  together"  As  only  believers 
"were  together,"  it  is  evident  the  Church  consisted  of  believers. 

In  addition  to  believers,  Methodist  add  to  their  Societies,  seekers 
and  unconscious  infants,  for  neither  of  which,  is  there  a  command  or 
example,  in  the  New  Testament.  In  every  caseT  the  passages  that  are 
referred  to  in  the  New  Testament  to  prove  the  right  of  infants  to  bap- 
tism, fail  to  Speak  of  both  baptism  and  infants  ;  if  the  passage  speaks 
of  infants,  it  says  not  one  word  about  baptism  !  If  it  speaks  of  bap- 
tism, it  fails  to  say  one  word  about  infants !  !  This  is  a  significant 
fact.  The  passages  that  are  refered  to,  as  proving  the  right  of  seekers 
to  join  the  Church,  or  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  in  the  same  di- 
lemma. The  New  Testament  gives  no  command  or  example  for  the  ad- 
mission of  seekers  or  penitents,  to  the  Church  or  to  the  communion. 

Their  main  argument  is,  joining  the  Church,  and  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  are  means  of  grace,  and  that  some  have  been  converted 
soon  after  joining  the  Church,  or  at  the  communion  table,  As  this  m 
not  a  Scripture,  argument,  and  it  is  not  known  whether  the  cases  re- 
fered to  were  genuine  cases  of  conversion,  I  shall  not  stop  to  con- 
sider it. 


30 


IIISTOEY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


The  definition  which  Mr.  Weslev  and  the  Discipline  give  of  the 
Church  of  God,  excludes  unconverted  seekere. 

The  Discipline  p.  1<£  defines  tl|3  Church  £s  follows:  "The  visible 
Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men  &c."  'Byfaihful  men, 
believers  are  meant,  for  Mr.  Weslev  says,  "By  faithful  men  the  compilers 
meant,  men  endued  with  living  faith.  This  brings  the  Ar'ticlejto  a  still 
nearer  agreement  to  the  account  given  by  the  Apostle."  Sermon  on  the 
Church. 

Mr.  W esley  was  speaking  of  the  19th  Article  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, from  which  the  definition  of  the  Church  in  the  Discipline,  was 
taken.  This  definition  of  the  visible  Church,  "a  congregation  of  faith- 
ful men"  (shaft  is  of  "men  endued  with  living  faith''  is  a  bar  to  the  right 
of  mere  seekers  or  penitents  to  the  Church. 

The  description  which  Mr.  Wesley  gives  of  those  "that  are  proper- 
ly the  Church  of  God7''  excludes  seekers  &c,  from  the  Church.  lie 
represents  the  Church  as  consisting  of  "those  whom  God  has  called  out 
of  the  world,"  "The  saints,  the  holy  persons."  Again  he  describes 
those  who  compose  the  Church  as  follows ;  "In  whom  there  is  one 
spirit,  one  hope,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism." — Sermon  on  the 
Church. 

In  those  who  properly  belong  to  the  Church,  there  "is  one  Spirit." 
"Does  a  believer  and  a  seekers  possess  one  spirit?  Do  they  possess 
one  hope?  and  one  faith?  If  they  do  not,  seekers  have  no  right  to 
membership  with  believers,  John  Wesley  being  judge. 

-  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  report  quite  a  number  of  revivals,  and  con- 
versions, but  not  one  instance  is  recorded  of  an  Apostle  advising  a  peni- 
tent, or  seeker,  to  join  the  Church,  or  go  to  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a 
means  of  grace.  They  invariably  gave  very  different  instruction.  It 
was  reserved  for  men  of  "inventive  genius,"  to  learn  that  joining  the 
Church  and  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  were  "means  of  grace"  to 
the  unconv  erted ! 

On  cue  occasion  at  least,  scelcer  membership  has  been  advocated  for 
a  very,  different  reason,  than  its  being  a  means  of  grace.  An  old  gen- 
tleman of  Wake  County,  N.  C,  now  deceased,  who  was  a  reliable  man, 
stated  to  a  Baptist  Minister  who  now  resides  in  said  County,  that  "soon 
after  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  he  was  in  a  class  meeting, 
the  Minister  present  invited  seekers  to  join  the  Church.    Some  ob- 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM.  || 

jection  being  made,  the  Minister  remarked,  the  United  Stdt.es  hare 
now  obtained  their  Independence  and  some  denomination  will  be  es- 
tablished by  law.  We  are  trying  to  increase  our  /numbers  as  fast  as 
possible,  in  order  that  ours  may  become  the  Established  Church." — 
Tt  was  very  natural  that  they  should  incline  that  way,  as  they  had 
been  nourished  in  an  Established  Church  for  fifty-five  years  ! 

The  following  ease  related  by  llev.  Win.  Annan,  gives  some  idea  cf 
the  false  impressions  that  ffeeker-membership  and  seeker-communion 
engender  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  brought  under  its  influence,  "on 
a  Methodist  communion  season,  where  seekers  were  invited  to  partake 
as  a  means  of  grace  ;  at  the  close  of  the  communion,  a  young  man 
from  the  back  part  of  the  house  came  forward  and  stepping  up  to  the 
minister,  said  :  "I  came  here  to  get  religion,  but  I  liked  to  forgot  it." — - 
The  sacrament  was  administered  to  him."  • 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Discipline  that  requires  that  members  shall 
be  true  believes,  or  converted  persons,  a  whole  class  or  society  may 
exist  without  necessarily  including  a  converted  person.  That  they 
receive  true  believers,  is  admitted,  but  still  their  Societies  may  exist 
without  them.  In  the  Discipline  p.  23,  the  term  of  admission  is  as 
follows  :  "There  is  only  one  condition  previously  required  of  those  who 
desire  admission  into  these  Societies,  "a  desire  to  nee  from  the  wrath 
to  come,  and  to  be  saved  from  their  sins  ?" 

The  New  Testament  opens  no  such  door  of  admission  into  the  Church 
rrf  God.  It  requires  faith,  if  "thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart'  thou 
may  est."  "And  when  they  believed,  they  were  baptized  both  men  and 
women."  There  is  no  identity  between  the  door  of  admission  into  the 
Church  of  God,  and  that  of  the  Methodist  Societies,  consequently 
their  terms  of  membership  are  unfavorable  to  their  being  a  (?os- 
pel  Church. 

JOfegT1  The  New  Testament  knows  nothing  of  a  six  montJi  probation, 
before  full  membership. 

Section  XIV. 

The  1st  ection,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  is  noi 
in  accordance  with  facts. 

1  It  states  that  Mr  "Wesley  "prefered  the  Episcopal  mode  of 
Church  government  to  an v  other."  Is  this  true?  If  so,  how  are  we 
to  reconcile  it  with  the  following  facts  ? 


82  HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

In  early  life,  Mr.  Wesley  zealously  espoused  Episcopacy.  In  1764. 
a  gentleman  was  travelling  in  England  who  cl  imed  to  be  a  Greek 
Bishop,  and  styled  himself  Erasmus  Bishop  of  Arcadia.  Mr  Wesley 
* 'strongly  pressed  this  supposed  Greek  Bishop  to  consecrate  him  a 
Bishop  at  large."*  It  is  also  said  this  supposed  Bishop  did  ordain  a 
few  of  Mr.  Wesley s  preachers,  who  officiated  in,  and  dressed  as  clergy- 
men of  the  Church  of  England  \  The  reason  that  Mr.  Wesley  failed 
of  being  ordained  a  universal  Bishop,  was,  as  stated  by  Erasmus,  that 
it  required  the  presence  of  two  Bishops,  to  ordain  a  Bishop. 

Soon  after  this,  as  will  soon  be  seen,  Mr.  Wesley  changed  his  opin- 
ion upon  this  subject. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  did  change  his  opinion,  and  give  up  his  preference 
for  Episcopacy  is  evident.  At  the  time  of  the  organization  of  tha 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  it  is  called,  Mr.  Wesley  did  not pr«- 
fei'  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government. 

1.  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "Lord  King's  account  of  the  Primitive  Church 
convinced  me  many  years  ago,  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  are  the 
same  07'der"  Wesley's  Works  v.  "(page  311. 

With  this  opinion,  how  eould  Mr.  Wesley  "prefer,  the  Episcopal 
mode  of  Church  government  ? 

2.  In  his  Notes  on  Phil.  i.  1.,  Mr.  Wesley  says,  the  names  Bishop, 
and  Presbyter,  or  elder  being  promiscuously  used  in  the  first  ages  &c." 

How  could  Mr.  Wesley,  prefer  Episcopacy  a,nd  make  it  a  higher  or- 
der, when  he  says,  it  is  the  same  as  presbyter  or  elder? 

3.  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "that  it  (Episcopacy),  '^prescribed  in  Scripture, 
I  do  not  believe."  This  opinion,  which  Ioxc-:  zealously  esposed,  I  havb 
hejen  ash ameo  of,  .ever  since  I  read  bishop  Sfcillingfleet's  Irenicon." 
—  Wesley's  "Works  v.  7. 

With  these  words  of  Mr.  Wesley  before  him,  who  can— who  will  be- 
lieve that  in  1784,  he  prefered  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  govern- 
ment  ? 

4.  When  Mr.  Wesley  heard  that  Messrs.  Coke  and  -A  sbury,  had  as- 
sumed the  title  of  bishops,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Asbury  as  follows;  "How 
can  you  dare  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  bishop  ?  I  shudder  at  the 
very  thought.    Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  Scoun- 

♦Tor  proof  of  this,  seo  Top^ady,  and  other  writers. 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


33 


drel  and  I  am  content,  but  they  shall  never  by  my  consent  call  me  a 
bishop.  For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ  sake,  put  a  full  end 
to  this."  ,  % 

Can  any  person  read  this  and  believe  the  truth  of  the  declaration  in 
the  first  chapter  of  the  Discipline,  that  Mr.  Wesley  'preferred  the  Epis- 
copal mode  of  Church  govenment  ?" 

5.  Mr.  Wesley  styled  bishops,  of  higher  order  than  Presbyter  or  El- 
der, heathenish  priest  and  mitered  infidels.  He  says,  "For  these  forty 
years  I  have  been  in  great  doubt  concerning  that  question,  "what  obe- 
dience is  due  to  heathenish  priest  and  mitered  infidels,"  *  .*.  * 
Some  obedience  I  always  paid  to  bishops,  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of 
the  land,  *  *  *  I  still  submit  to  mitered  infidels" — Wesley's 
Works. 

With  these  words  of  Mr.  Wesley  before  him,  who  will,  who  can  be- 
lieve that  he  "preferred  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government  ?" 

2.  Again,  the  bishops  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  book  of  Discipline 
say,  Mr.  Wesley  "set  apart  Dr.  Coke,  for  the  Episcopal  office,  and  de- 
livered to  him  letters  of  Episcopal  orders,"  and  commissioned  and  di- 
rected him  "to  set  apart  Francis  Asbury  for  the  same  Episcopal  office," 
and  that  "Mr.  Asbury  wa.s  set  apart  for  the  same  Episcopal  office." 

Are  these  things  true  ?  Did  Wesley  ordain  Coke  a  bishop  of  a 
higher  order  than  a  presbyter  ?  Did  he  intend  to  set  him  apart  as  a 
bishop  of  the  third  order,  and  superior  to  a  presbyter  ?  If  so,  he  con- 
fere-d  upon  him  the  title  of  "heathenish  priest  and  mitered  infidel." 
For  this  is  what  he  styled,  prelatitical  bishops  ! 

The  evidence  that  I  have  just  submitted,  to  prove  that  Mr.  Wesley 
did  not  prefer  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government,  also  proves 
that  he  did  not  set  apart  Dr.  Coke,  as  a  bishop,  and  deliver  to  him,  letters 
of  Episcopal  orders  &c.  In  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  of  appointment,  there 
is  not  one  word  about  a  bishop,  Episcopal  office,  or  instructions  to  set 
apart  Asbury  to  the  said  Episcopal  office.  * 

In  this  letter  setting  forth  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Wes- 
ley says,  "I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  Superintendent  &c,  Dr. 
Thomas  Coke."  He  does  not  call  him  a  bishop,  or  use  any  word  that 
implies  that  he  set  him  apart  as  a  bishop  and  superior  to  a  Presbyter 

For  the  preceeding  fifty  five  years,  Mr.  Wesley  had  withheld  from 
his  preachers,  the  right  to  administer  the  ordinances.  He  sent  over 
Dr.  Cake  to  ordain  ministers,  supply  the  Societies  with  the  ordinan- 
ces, and  at  the  same  time  act  as  Superintendent  to  keep  the  people  un- 


H  HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

der  the  care  of  Mr.  Wesley.  In  this  letter  of  appointment  Mr.  Wes- 
ley says,  "Whereas  many  of  the  people  &c,  who  desire  to  continue  un- 
der my  care,  &c." 

Dr.  Coke  was  a  Superintendent  under  Mr.  Wesley,  and  derived  his 
authority  from  him.  How  could  he  be  a  bishop,  and  still  be  under 
Mr.  Wesley,  who  was  only  a.  presbyter  ?  The  idea  of  a  Presbyter,, 
Ordaining  a  man  bishop,  to  keep  the  neople  under  his  care,  is  absur<J 
in  the  extreme  !  Mr.  Wesley  never  intended  to  put  Dr.  Coke  in  a' 
higher  office  than  he  (Wesley)  held  himself.  Mr.  Asbury  said,  "Mr. 
Wesley  and  I,  are  like  Caesar  and.  Pompey,-— he  (Wesley)  will  bear  no. 
equal,  and  I  (Asbury)  will  bear  no  superior."* — See  Wesley's  Letter 
of  Oct.,  31, 1789. 

No  man  knew  Wesley  better  than  Asbury,  lie  tells  us,  Wesley  "will 
hear  no  equal."  Asbury  being  judge,  Wesley  never  intended  by  set- 
ting apart  Dr.  Coke  a  superintendent,  to  put  him  in  an  office  equal  tor 
much  less,  superior  to  himself! 

If  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Coke  a  bishop  of  a  higher  order  than  a 
presbyter,  the  less  power,  created  the  greater. 

Even  if  Mr.  Wesley  had  intended  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke,  to  the  Epis- 
copal office,  it  would  "only  have  been  a  Spurious  EpiscOpaey,  for  he 
was  only  a  presbyter  himself !  If  he  created  Coke  a  bishop  of  higher 
order  than  presbyter,  Wesley  put  a  greater  official  power  over  his  fol- 
lowers than  he  possessed  himself!  That  he  did  not  do  this  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  he,  as  Asbury  says,  could  "bear  no  equal,"  much 
less  a  superior  and  that  upon  hearing  that  Coke  and  Asbury,  had  as- 
sumed the  title,  and  were  exercising  the-  office- of  bishops,  he' remon- 
strated, and  said,  "Eor  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,,  for  Christ's  sake,  put, 
a  full  end  to  this,"  telling  them  at  the  same  time  "I  am  the  father  of 
ihe  whole  family, — you  are  the  Elder  brother."  Wesley  was  perfectly 
shocked  at  the  idea  of  an  "elder  brother,"  having  more  power  and 
authority  over  his  "children"  than  he  possessed  !  That  I  am  npt  mista** 
ken,  is  evident,  from  Mr.  Wesley's  own  words  in,  a  letter  dated  Lon- 
don Oct.  31,  1789.  He  says,  "I  was  importuned  to  send  some  of  my 
children  to  America  &c.,  &c.  I  was  therefore  a  little  surprised  when 
I  received  some  letters  from  Mr.  Asbury,  affirming  that  no  person  in. 
Europe  knew  how  to  direct  those  in  America.  Soon  after,,  he  (Asbu- 
ry) flatly  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  in  the  character  I  sent  him." 

How  cruel !  what  base  ingratitude ! !  How  could  Asbury  treat  father 
Wesley  so  ungratefully?"    Let  him  answer,  "I  will  bear  no  superior.'* 

That  Mr.  Wesley  set  apart  Coke  a  superintendent  under  him,  and 
did  not  create  him  a  bishop  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
says,  "I  have  appointed  Di\  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  he  joint  superin- 
tendents over  our  brethren  in  America."  This  explains  the  whole 
mystery.  Asbury  was  set  apart  in  1772  and  Coke  in  1784,  the  office, 
was  the  same,  Asbury  was  set  apart  with  the  title  of  "General  Assis- 
tant," and  overseer  under  Wesley.  An  American  Methodist  says,  "In 
appointing  Mr.  Asbury  a  general  Assistant,  he  (Wesley)  constituted 
him  the  head  of  all  the  preachers  and  societies  in  America,  but  under- 

^Thcre  is  a  world  of  truth  in  this. 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


35 


the  general  direction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  to  whom  he  (Asbury)  made  re*- 
gular  reports."  No  one  is  at  a  loss  to  know  what  kind  of  an  office 
Asbury  held  under  Wesley.  No  one  will  assert  that  Asbury  was  a 
bishop  while  acting  under  Mr.  Wesley  as  general  Assistant,  from  1772 
to  1784,  a  period  of  twelve  years.  Asbury  was  set  apart  in  1772, 
Coke  in  1784  and  yet  Mr.  Wesley  says,  "I  have  set  apart  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury  to" be  joint  superintendents."  If  the  appointment  of 
*  Asbury  by  Wesley  in  1772  did  not  make  him  a  bishop,  the  setting 
apart  of  Dr.  Coke  in  1784  did  not  make  him  a  bishop,  for  Wesley  says, 
"I  have  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury,  to  ho  joint  su- 
perintendents over  our  brethren  in  North  America/' — 

It  is  said  Dr..  Coke  set  apart  Mr.  Asbury,  to  the  Episcopal  office. — 
lie  only  set  him  apart  as  a  Superintendent,  but  this  was  a  work  of 
Supererogation,  for  Mr.  Wesley  says,  Jjjigf"!  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbury  to  be  joint  Superintendents. "az^^<  They  were  equal  in 
office  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment.  If  Coke  was  a  bishop,  so  was  As- 
bury, if  the  ordination  of  Asbury  by  Coke  raised  him  any  higher  than 
he  was  before.  Asbury  was  one  degree  higher  in  office  than  Coke  ! 
while  Coke  was  bishop,  Asbury  was  Achbishop  ! ! 

It  is  said  superintendent  and  bishop  mean  the  same  thing,  that  the 
appointment  of  Superintendent,  was  the  same  as  bishop.  A  superin- 
tendent is  not  necessarily  a  bishop,,  a*  superintendent  is  one  that 
acts  for  another,  as  Coke  and  Asbury  did  for  Wesley.  This  quibble, 
abou,t  these  words  meaning  the  same  thing,  is  decided  by  Mr.  Wesley. 

If  he  understood  the  words  to  mean  the  same,  and  did  set  apart  Coke 
to  the  Episcopal  office,:  as  the  bishops  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Dis- 
cipline say  he  did,  why  did  Mr.  Wesley  write  to  Asbury  as  follows  ? 
"One  instance  of  this  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great  concern. — 
How  can  you,  dare,_  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  bishop  ?  I  shudder, 
I  start,  at  the  very  thought.  Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a 
rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I  am  content,  but  they  shall  never  by  my  con- 
sent, call  me  a  bishop  !  For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ  sake.,, 
p  it  a  full  end  to  this  !    See  Wesley's  letter  to  xlsbury. 

Rev.  A.  McCaine  a  Methodist  Prot.  says,  "If  Mr.  Wesley  did  ap- 
prove of  the  proceedings  of  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  the  conference 
of  1784/  let  the  evidence  of  if  be  produced.  If  Methodist  Episcopacy 
had  Mr.  Wesley's  approbation,  it  will  be  strange  if  nothing  of  this  ap-. 
probation,  can  be  found  among  all  of  Mr..  Wesley's,  Dr.  Coke's,  or  Mr. 
Asbury's  papers.  To  produce  documentoyry  and  explicit  evidence  of 
this  fact,  I  challenge  the  world  ! — Defence  of  the  Truth  &c.p.  84,  in  re- 
ply to  Emory. 

I  have  now  fully  proved  that  My.  Wesley  did  not  prefer  the  Episco- 
pal mode  of  Church  government"  and  that  he.  did  not  set  apart  Dr. 
Coke  to  the,  Episcopal?  office. 

3.  Again,  the  bishops  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  book  of  Discipline, 
say,  " At  which  time  (Dec.  25,  1784)  the  general  Conference  held  in 
Baltimore,  did  unanimously  recieve  the  said  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury,  as  their  Episcopal  bishops,"  Do  fa,cts  sustain  this  assertion  t 
l-key  do  not.  Instead  of  the  conference  receiving  Coke  and  Asbury  as 
Ifishops.  at  this  time,,  (,17-84}  by  unanimous  vote,  as  the  bishops  say,  it 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


was  not  done  until  several  years  af towards,  and  then  not  "by  unanimous 
vvte.7' — This  I  will  prove  by  Methodist  testimony. 

pipit  was  done  by  Coke  and  Asbury  in  1787,  and  then  connived 
at,  and  allowed  to  remain  by  the  next  conference  I'^g 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  this  is  a  hard  saying,  at  all  events  it  is  true, 

Mr.  Lee,  a  leading  Methodist,  in  his  Jlistory  of  the  Methodists,  says, 
"in  the  course  of  this  year  (1787)  Mr.  Asbury  reprinted  the  general 
Minutes  ;  but  in  a  different  form  from  what  they  were  before.  The 
title  of  the  pamphlet  was  as  follows  :  "A  form  of  Discipline  for  the 
ministers,  preachers,  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America  there  were  31  sections,  and  C3  questions  &c*  the 

third  question  in  the  secend  section,  and  the  answer  reads  thus  : 

Question,  Is  there  any  other  business  to  be  done  in  Conference  ? 

"Answer.  The  electing  and  ordaining  the  bishops,  elders  and  dea- 
cons/ 

This  is  ^ho  first  time  (says  Mr.  Lee)  that  our  Superintendents  ever 
gave  themselves  the  title  of  bishops.  .  They  (Coke  and  Asbury)  chang- 
ed the  title  themselves,  without  the  consent  of  the  conference.  And 
at  the  next  conference  they  (Coke  and  Asbury)  asked  the  preachers 
(Conference)  f  the  word  bishop  might  stand  in  the  minutes-,  saying 
that  it  was  a  Scripture  name,  and  the  meaning  of  the  word  bishop,  was 
the  same  with  that  of  superintendent." 

"Some  of  the  preachers  (continues  Lee)  opposed  the  alteration  and 
wished  to  retain  the  former  title  ;  but ,a  majority  of  the  preachers  agreed 
to  let  the  word  bishop  remain ;  and  in  the  annual  minutes  for  the  next 
year  the  first  question  is  "  Who  are  the  bishops  of  our  Church  for  the 
United  States  ? — See  Short  History,  &c,  page  127. — SeeMusgrovep.43, 

Kcv.  A.  McCaine,  a  Methodist,  says  : — "It  is  now  well  known,  that 
term  (bishop)  was  not  used  until  1787.  " — Reply  to  Emory,  p.  119. 

I  have  abundantly  proved  that  the  Conference  in  1784  did  not  at  that 
time,  "  unanimously  receive  Coke  and  Asbury  as  their  bishops, "  as 
the  bishops  assert  it  did. 

4.  Again,  the  bishops,  in  the  1st  chapter  of  the  discipline,  say  : — 
"  The  Conference  mt&s  fully  satisfied,  of  the  validity  of  their  Episcopal 
ordination. ■  ' 

How  can  this  be  true,  when,  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  name 
bishops  was  not  given  to  them,  until  three  years  afterwards  ?  At 
which  time  Coke  and  Asbury  surreptitiously  introduced  the  word 
bishops  in  the  place  of  superintendents,  and  asked  the.  Conference,  as 
has  just  been  shown,  to  let  it  Stand  lea^L 

If  the  conference  was  "fully  satisfied  with  the  validity  of  their  Epis- 
copal ordination"  it  is  more  than  can  be  said  of  Coke  and  Asbury. 

Dr.  Bascom,  afterwards  a  bishop  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  society, 
says,  "Dr.  Coke,  in  a  letter  to  bishop  White  of  Philadelphia  doubts 
the  power  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  confer  legitimate  Episcopal  authority  ;  he 
does  the  same  in  a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  London,  written  subsequent- 
ly, in  both  of  which,  he  modestly  asks  for  re-ordaination.' , — See  Dr. 
Bonds  Econ.  of  Meth.  p.  117. 

In  his  letter  to  Bishop  White,  Dr.  Coke  not  only  asks  for  re-cr 
daination  for  himself,  but  says,  "our  ordained  ministers  will  not,  ought 


HISTORY  OE  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


not,  to  give  up  their  right  to  administer  the  sacraments,  I  dont  think 
the  generality  of  them  perhaps  none-  of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit 
to  a  re-ordination!* 

Dr.  Coke  was  familiar  with,  and  knew  the  minds  of  the  preachei  s 
upon  this  subject,  he  was  disatisfiecl  with  his  own  ordination,  and 
says  the  generality  .of  them  loould  submit  to  a,  re-ordination  I  As  tlie 
conference  was  composed  of  Coke,  Asbury,  and  these  same  preachers, 
who  will  believe  that  the  conference  was  fully  satisfied  with  the  Epis- 
copal ordination  of  Coke  and  Asbury? 

Section  XT. 

As  the  Episcopacy  is  spurious,  ^m^y^  surreptitiously  introduced  in- 
to the  so-called  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, "  it  cannot  be  appro- 
priately called,  and  recognized  as  a,  Church  of  Christ. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  prefer  and  establish  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pacy, and  that  it  is  spurious,  and  was  surreptitiously  introduced,  will 
appear  from  the  following  additional  testimony  : 

'Dr.  Bascom,  afterwards  a  Methodist  bishop,  says  :  "  Mr.  Wesley 
seems  not  to  have  contemplated  an  Episcopacy,  in  any  shape.  Ic  is, 
to  be  sure,  asserted  in  the  preface  to  our  Book  of  Discipline,  but  the 
oldest  preachers  in  the  United  States,  with  whom  we  have  conversed, 
and  corresponded  on  this  subject,  never  saw  the  wdrrenf.  It  has  been 
called  for  by  friends  and  foes,  for  thirty  years,  but  it  is  not  yet  forth- 
coming !  If  such  a  warrent  exist,  why  is  it,  that  wo  can  never  hear 
anything  about  it  ?  But  until  such  a  document  is  found,  I,  as  an  in- 
dividual, must  of  necessity  continue  to  doubt  the  historical  probity  (hon- 
esty) of  the  preface  to  our  Book  of  Discipline,  in  relation  to  this  par- 
ticular. I  am,  (continues  Bascom)  the  more  confident  that  no  such 
document  exists,  because  Mi\  esley  has  expressly,  in  a  letter  to  bish- 
op Asbury,  now  before  the  public,  ridiculed  his  pretensions  as  a  bish- 
p,  in  a  way  that  plainly  says,  Mr.  Wesley  never  intended  that  Mr.- 
Asbuiw  to  be  one  of  the  type  he  was  Mr.  Wesley  definitely  disowns 
his  belief  in  the  validity  of  a  third  ordination  differently  from  that  of 
presbyter.  Finally,  as  Mr.  Wesley  was  only  a  presbyter  himself,  he 
could  not,  if  disposed;  have  conferred  a  third  and  higher  ordination  on 
Div  Coke;  and  directed  him  to  confer  the  same  ordination  on  Mr.  As- 
buiy. — I  Dr.  Bonds  Economy  of  Methodism. 

Again  says  Dr.  Bascom  :  "  If  our  bishops,  &c,  would  yield  and  dis- 
tribute, &c,  that  part  of  their  power  that  has  come  into  their  harids 
surreptitiously,  it  would,  &c.  " 

Dr.  Bonds  Economy  of  'Methodism,  p.  117, 

In  1827,  Rev  Alexander  McCaine,  a  Methodist,  wrote  to  each  bish- 
op of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  society,  as  follows  : — 

"  I  candidly  say,  then,  I  cannot  believe,  from  the  testimony  of  any 
or  all  the  documents  which  I  have  been  able  to  peruse,  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley ever  recommended  the  Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government  to 
he  American  Methodists.   I  cannot  believe  he  ever  gave  any  counsel 
to^create  a  third  order  of  ministers,  as;  distinct  from,  and  superior  to 


*Rev.  A.  McCaine,  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Emory  gives  the  whole  of  this  famous  letter.  It  is 
before  me.  '  -V 


7 


38  HISTROY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

the  order  of  presbyter,  but  I  am  forced  to  believe  that  the  present  form 
of  government  was  surreptitiously  introduced  $  and  was  imposed  upon 
the  societies  under  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name. 

Bascom  and  McCaine,  both  leading  minds  in  the  Methodist  conven- 
ion,  demanded  of  the  bishops  whose  names  -are  to  the  preface  of  the 
discpline,  the  proof,  that  Wesley  preferred,  or  recommended  the  Epis- 
copal mode  of  Church  government,  and  ordained  Dr.  Coke  a  bishop, 
&c.  But  they  could  never  get  any  reply.  They  both,  as  has  been  | 
seen,  affirm  that  the  Episcopacy  "was  surreptitiously  introduced  !  " 

Again,  says  Bascom,  44  In  the  preface  to  our  book  of  discipline,  the 
adoption  of  our  present  form  of  government,  is  attributed  to  the  ex- 
press instructions  of  Mr.  Wesley  ;  but  the  venerable  Wesley  has  une- 
quivocally disowned  the  honor,  and  no  one  has  ever  shown  or  quoted  the 
document,  paper  or  verbal  instructions  of  Mr.  Wesley.  It  is  now  nearly 
a  year  since  all  our  bishops  were  respectfully  invited  to  furnish  informa- 
tion on  this  subject,  if  they  had  any  to  furnish.  They  have  not  even  de- 
igned a  replyof  any  kind,  passing  by  the  uncourteousnessof  such  an  act, 
and  the  insult  it  offers,  to  the  thousands,  who  it  is  known  to  the  bishops, 
feel  a  deep  interest  in  the  subject,  I  shall  plead  their  apology,  by  taking 
it  for  granted,  that  they  would  have  replied,  if  they  had  been  able  to  do 
so,  without  defacing  the  beauty  of  their  4  institutions  received  from 
their  fathers, '  many  of  whom  are  still  living  ;  or  perhaps,  like  the  Chi- 
nese historians,  "  they  are  unacquainted  with  their  own  origin,  be- 
cause their  living  fathers  conceal  it." 

See  Dr.  Bond's  Econ.  of  Methodism,  p.  116. 

I  have  now  adduced  sufficient  proof  to  sustain  me  in  saying  the  first 
section,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  is  not  in  accor- 
dance with  faets,  and  that  it  is  an  imposition,  and  a  fraud  upon  those 
who  are  induced  to  believe  its  truthfulness. 

Should  it  be  said,  I  speak  disparagingly  of  great  men,  my  apology 
is,  deception  and  fraud  are  to  be  rebuked  in  high,  as  well  as  low  pla- 
ces, especially,  when  an  attempt  is  made,  in  this  Avay,  to  palm  off  up- 
on the  world  a  spurious  and  surreptitious  Episcopacy.  I  have  said 
nothing  more  severe,  than  the  distinguished  Bascom  said  of  his  prede- 
cessors. 

Dr.  Bascom,  afterwards  a  Methodist  bishop,  says  :  "  Thus  the  rea- 
der will  perceive  that  our  4  fathers ;  acted  a  palpably  inconsistent  part 
in  the  introduction  of  Episcopacy,  among  us,  and  have  been  under 
the  necessity,  (created  by  their  own,  indiscretion)  of  acting  an  equally 
awkward,  and  I  fear  posterity  will  think  ridiculous  part,  in  defending 
themselves  against  the  charge  of  reckless  usurpation  of  warranted  pow- 
er. " — In  Bond's  Econ.  Meih*  p.  117. 

Again,  Dr.  Bascom  calls  them  44  self-created  bishops, "  and  their 
system  an  "enormously  mis-shapen  system  of  aristocratic  government." 

44  It  was  the  undivulged  project,  the  favorite  scheme  of  a  few  master 
spirits,  who  meeting  in  secret  conclave  and  excluding  'the  junior  mem- 
bers, even  of  their  oion  body,  (as  living  witnesses  declare)  acknowledg- 
ing no  constitutional  rights,  and  comprehending  no  legislative  privi- 
leges as  belonging  to  any  except  themselves  ;  proceeded  to  the  pres- 


filSTOIiY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


trit  plan  of  government  among  us,  and  unblushingly  palmed  it  upon 
posterity,  as  the  offspring  of  Mr.  Wesley's  wisdom  and  experience. 13 

In  Mutual  Bights,  June,  1827. 

The  terms  "  self-styled,  "  "  self-created, "  "  palpably  inconsistent,  'J 
"  reckless  usurpation  and  unwarrentecl  power, "  "enormously  missha- 
pen," unblushingly  palmed,  n  aristocratic,"  "  spurious, ;;  "surrepti: 
tiously  introduced,  "  "ridiculous,  "  &c,  are  the  words  of  their  beloved 
Bishop  Bascom. 

In  the  face  of  all  the  preceeding  testimony,,  and  much  more  that  is 
known  to  them,  Methodists  still  affirm  that  Wesley  did  create  three  or- 
ders in  the  ministry — did  establish  Episcopacy  ! 

Dr.  Emory  says  "  In  whatever  sense  distinct  ordinations  consti- 
tute distinct  orders.  In  the  same  sense  Mr.  Wesley  certainly  intend- 
ed that  we  should  have  three -orders,  &c.  "j— 

Emory's  Drfence,  Section  7. 

Drs.  Bangs  and  Emory  say  :  "  Three  orders  of  ministers  are  recog- 
nized, and  the  duties  of  each  clearly  defined. 11 

In  Buck's  Theol,  Die,  Ed.  o/1825. 

The  reverse  of  what  Drs.  Emory  and  Bangs  assert,  I  will  prove  by 
-Mr.  Wesley's  own  words. 

Mr.  Wesley  says  :  "Lord  King's  account  of  the  Primitive  Church 
convinced  me  many  years  ago,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same 
office,  "  That  it  (Episcopacy)  is  prescribed  in  Scripture  Jg^*  I  do  not 
believe  ""g^i  this  opinion  which  I  once  zealously  espoused,  I  have  been 
ashamed  of,  ever  since  I  read  bishop  Stillingfleetfs  Ironicon." 

Mr.  Wesley  said  he  would  sooner  be  called  V  a  knave,  a  fool,  a  ras- 
cal, or  a  scoundrel,  "  than  a  "bishop.".  He  calls  bishops  of  a  high  - 
er order  than  presbyter,  "  heathenish  priests  and  mitred  infidels" 

Who,  then,  dare  affirm,  that  Wesley  introduced  a  third  or  higher  or- 
der than  presbyter  ?  Would  he  do  a  thing  that  he  had  long  since 
been  ashamed  of  having  advocated  ? 

The  reader  is  now  in  possession  of  some  of  the  reasons  for  not  rec- 
ognizing the  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, ''  as  a  Church  of  Christ. 

Section  XVI. 

Those  who  have  heretofore  had  the  courage  and  firmness,  to  ques- 
tion the  validity  of  their  Episcopacy,  and  the  authority  of  "Wesley,and 
his  coadjutors  to  form  a  gospel  Church  &c,  have  received  unmeasur- 
ed abuse.  The  whole  vocabulary  of  abusive  epithets  has  been  ex- 
hausted upon  them,  and  disreputable  means  resorted  to,  to  blacken 
and  blast  their  private  character,  In  confimation  of  this,  I  need  on- 
ly refer  to  the  abusive  unchristian,  and  ungentlcmanly  epithets  that 
have  been  heaped  upon  Ross,  Annan,  J.  R.  Graves,  Henderson,  Par- 
sons. Cooke  and  others.  A  discerning  public  knows  how  to  appre- 
ciate such  a  course-.  Dr.  Parsons  Cooke,  a  minister  of  the  Congre- 
gational Church,  takes  the  position  that  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  "  is  not  a  Church  of  Christ.  He  says,  "  Methodism  is  not  a 
branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ. '; 

Etimote  of  Methodism. 


4Q  HISTORY  OE  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 

From  this,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  Baptists  are  not  alone  in  reject- 
ting  the  claims  of  the  so  called,  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

If  Baptist  writers  or  speakers,  dispute  the  validity  of  their  Episco- 
pacy, and  the  right  of  Wesley  and  his  followers  to  '  set  up  a  gospel 
Church  &c,  Methodists  seem  to  think,  that  they  have  fully  met  the 
cc.sc  and  established  the  validity  of  their  claim,  by  asking :  "  Did  not 
John  Wesley  have  as  good  a  right  to  found  a  Church,  as  Roger  Wil- 
liams ?  The  validity,  or  invalidity  of  one  denomination,  does  not  es- 
tablish the  validity  of  another.  It  is  not  lawful  to  try  two  suits  at 
oiice,  yet  Methodist's,  in  order  to  divert  attention  from  the  invalidity 
of  their  Church  organization,  are  for  trying  both  Wesley  and  Wil- 
liams at  once,  or  rather,  they  are  for  trying  Williams  to  prevent  Wes- 
ley from  being  tried  !  As  a  matter  of  courtesy,  however,  I  will  accom- 
modate them.  i 

I  deny  the  right  of  both  Wesley  and  Williams,  to  found  a  Church 
of  Christ,  and  demand  of  Methodists  the  divine  right  of  Wesley  and 
his*  followers  to  organize  a  Church  of  Christ,  or  admit  that  they  have 
no  Church  ! 

As  I  deny  the  right  of  Roger  Williams  to  found  a  Church,  I  have 
no  defence  to  set  up,  and  would  here  rest  the  case,  but  for  the  fact, 
that  Pcdo-baptists  regard  Mr.  Williams  as  the  founder  of  the  Baptist 
Churches  in  America. 

That  Roger  Williams,  a  Pedo-baptist,  embraced  Baptist  sentiments, 
and  was  baptized  in  March,  1689,  by  a  layman,  and  is  sa  id  to  have  or- 
ganized the  first  Baptist  Church  in  America  is  not  denied.  That 
Williams  did  organize  the  first  Baptist  Church  in  the  United  States, 
and  that  there  is  a  succession  of  Baptist  Churches,  or  ministers,  whose 
baptism  can  be  traced  to  Roger  Williams,  is  not  admitted.  The  mis- 
take whijh  Benedict,  and  other  Baptist  writers,  have  made,  relative  to 
the  Roger  Williams*  Church,  being  the  first  and  oldest  Baptist  Church 
in  America,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  fact,  that  they  confound  the 
present  first- Church  in  Providence,  with  the  Roger  Williams'  Church. 
This'  is  a  serious  mistake,  and  places  the  Baptist  Churches  in  Ameri- 
ca, in  a  false  light. 

1.  Roger  Williams  did  not  found  a  new  denomination,  (Mr.  "Wesley 
and  his  co-adjutors  did.)  Williams'  organization  did  not  bring  into 
existence  a  new  sect.  lie  only  embraced  the  principles  of  a  Church 
that  was  already  in  existence.  To  organize  or  constitute  a'  Church,  of 
the  same  faith  and  practice,  and  in  fellowship  with  one  already  in  ex- 
istence, is  not founding  a  Church;  it  is  only  an  extension  of  one  al- 
ready in  being. 

2.  The  Baptism  of  Roger  Williams  was  not  the  beginning  of  the  Bap- 
tist in  America.  In  1633,  six  years  before  the  Baptism  of  Williams, 
Hansard  Knolleys  a  Baptist  minister  came  from  England.  "Ho  was 
the  first  minister  ever  settled  in  Dover,  New  Hampshcre,  where  he 
preached  from  A.  D.  1635,  to  1639.  In  1642  he  returned  to  England/' 
— Encydopedia  of  Rel.  Knowl.  p.  724. 

From^this  it  will  be  seen  that  Handsard  Knolleys  a  Baptist  minis- 
ter was  setled  in  Dover,  N.  II  four  years  before  the  baptism  of  Mr. 
Williams. 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


41 


Joseph  Belcher,  in  his  History  of  the  Eeligious  Denominations  in 
the  United  States,  p.  171,  says,  "a,n<\four  years  before  the  baptism  of 
Williams,  though  unknown  to  him,  the  Rev.  Hansard  Knollys  a  dis- 
tinguished Baptist  minister  in  London,  arrived  in  Boston,  where  he 
remained  some  time  diffusing,  as  he  could,  Baptist  principles.  He 
was  the  first  minister  ever  settled  in  New  Hampshire.  He  took  ciiaryt 
of  the  Church  at  Dover  in  1635  and  resigned  in  1030.  His  char 
was  injured  by  some  Historians  in  New  England  ;  but  was  vindicate  1 
bv  Drs.  Cotton,  Mather  and  Nealc.  Seeing  little  hope  of  organizing 
Baptist  Churches,  he  returned  to  England." 

From  this  testimony  it  is  evident,  there  was  a  Baptist  Church  in 
Dover,  and  Mr.  Knoliys.had  "charge  of  it  from  1035  to  1039.  IJedo- 
baptist persecution  severed  his  connexion  with  this  Church,  and  he  re- 
turned to  England.  The  irregular  baptism  of  Williams  was  the  effect 
of  Pedo-baprlist  persecution. 

Just  before  the  baptism  of  Williams  the  organization  of  a  Baptist 
Church  ivas  prevented  in  Massachusetts,  by  persecution,  as  will  soon  i  e 
seen.  Pedo-baotist  should  blush  for  shame  whenever  they  taunt  the 
Baptist,  with  the  baptism  of  Roger  Williams.  It  is  a  memento  of 
their  persecuting  proclivity.  There  is  not  a  Pedo-baptist  denomina- 
tion that  existed  before  the  baptism  of  lloger  AVilliams,  that  has  not 
persecuted  the  Baptist,  Catholics,  Lutherens,  Presbyterians  and  Epis- 
copalians have  all  persecuted  Baptist  unto  death  for  conscience  sake. 
JCS^Thc  Baptist  is  the  only  denomination  that  existed  before  religious' 
toleration  was  established,  that  has  not  persecuted  others.^^ot  fJish- 
op  Hughs  in  his  Orol  Discussion  with  Dr.  Brenckinridgc"  p.  521, 
say  of  the  Baptist,  they  have  never  "been  guilty  of  persecution  for 
conscience  sake.    Their  robes  arc  as  yet  unstained  with  this  crime." 

Roger  Williams  was  banished  from  Massachusetts  by  Pedo-baptist 
intollcrance,  he  founded  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  'here  he  coidd  tiafie 
retaliated,  but  instead  of  this,  he  immortalized  his  name  by  establish- 
ing the  first  government  in  the  world  that  gave  religious  toleration  to 
alii 

3.  The  Newport  Baptist  Church  was  organised  in  1038  ;  one  reir  be- 
fore the  baptism  of  Mr.  Williams.  El.  David  Benedict  in  his  History 
of  the  Baptist  says,  according  to  tradition,  the  Newport  Church  was 
organised  in  1044,  Elder  S  Adlam,  Pastor  of  the  Newport  Church  has 
proved,  not  by  tradition,  but  by  irresistible  proof  that  the  true  date  of 
the  Newport  Church  is  A.  D.  1038,  one  year  before  the  Baptism  of 
Williams. 

j^^The  century  sermon  by  El.  John  Callendcr,  was  preached  in 
173b  just  one  hundred  years  after  its  organization.  This,  of  itself,  is 
proof  that  the  Newport  Church  was  organized  in  1038,  one  year  before 
Williams  was  baptized,  which  was  in  1639.  From  this,  it  is  evident 
that  the  Nev:port  .Church  is  the  oldest  Baptist  Church  in  America. 

4.  There  were  Baptist  in  Massachusetts  for  a  considerable  time  be- 
fore the  baptism  of  Williams.  Benedict  says,  "Some  of  the  first  pi 'an- 
ters  in  this  State  (Mass.)  were  Baotist."    His.  of  Baptist,  p.  308. 

5.  At  Weymouth,  Massachusetts,  an  attempt  was  made  t'j  fosiii  e. 
Baptist  Church  a  short  time  before  the  baptism  of  Williams. 


HISTORY  Oft  EPISCOPAL  M^TfifefctSM. 


They  were  till  arraigned  before  the  general  court  at  Boston,  MarclS 

loth  L639  some  were  fined,  BQiHQ  im prisoned,         — Benedicts  Uis.  of 

Bap.  n.  369; 

C).  Roger  Williams,  was  a  Baptist  orily  /bwr  months,   lie  embraced 

the  Opinio^  tliat  there  was  no  (rue  Vlinrc'h,  or  inhiislri/. 

Thomas  Lechfprd  who  visited  IMiodo.  Island  in  1640 or  early  in  1011, 
says,  "Here,  lives  Master  Williams,  and  his  compan/^  ol*  diyers  opin- 
ions ;  most  are  anabaptist ;  they  hold  there  is  no  true  visible  Church 
in  the  Hay,  nor  in  (he,  world,  nor  any  Une  ministry." — As  quoted  hy 
FA.  S.  Adlam. 

Hereisthv  testimony  of  an  eye  -witness  an  English.  Mpis.-.opalian  who 
•was  on  the  ground  in  loss  than  two  years  after  the  baptism  of  Wil- 
liams. From  his  statement  of  •the  case,  there  was  no  'org  mi  zed 
Church  at  that,  time  in  Providence*  Williams  and  company  U)li\ed 
says  Lechford,  "there  is  no  true  visible  Church  in  the  world,  nor  any 
true  ministry/'  W it h  this  opinion  they  were  not  a  gospel  Church, 
they  did  not  profess  to  lie  a  Church.  Lech  ford  does  not  call  them  a 
Church,  hut  a.  "coinparijf  of  diverse  opinions.'1  It  is  hy  no  means  cer- 
tain, that  Williams  and  his  company  were  even  constituted  into  a 
Church,  if  tlwiy  Wove,  it  soon  died  out.    This  is  evident  from  the  testi- 

monoy  of  Cotton  Mather,  in  his  Meed,  1 1  is.  of  New  EnglanuVp.  Me 
says  of  Williams  and  his  "Company/'  "There  (in  Providence)  they 
proceeded  not  only  unto  the  gathering  of  a  thing  like  a  (Hhufcll  (SSC.; 
a/Ur  this,  he  (Williams)  turned  seeker  and  Fanudist,  and  the  Church 
eame  to  nothing." 

Mr  Lech  ford  calls  it,  a  "company,"  a.nd  Mather  calls  it  "a  thing  like 
Church,"  and  adds  it  "come,  to  nothi n<j.>} 

7.  Elder  S.  Adlam,  who  has  thoroughly  investigated  this  subject, 
S£i^s,  "I  find  no  trace,  of  a  Baptist  Church  in  Providence,  after  the 
failure  o/'  lioi/er  William s,  till  after  1650.  Thojirst  inlimation  of  a 
a  OhurCh  there,  I  find  in  the  fall  of  1651" 

tf.  In  L&SjJithere  were//po  Baptist  Churches  in  Providence  neither  of 

which  had  a  house  of  worship.  "The  first  House  of  Worship  was 
built  by  Klder  Pardon  Tillinghasf,  in  A.  1).  1700  at  his  own  exjtense. 
Before  that,  they  wrorsliiped  in  a,  grove,  and  in  private  houses  when 
the  weather  was  inclement." — Benedict's,  Uis.  Bap. 

(hie  of  these  Churches  (in  LC52)  was  a  fire,  principle  Church  under 
(lie  care  of  PI.  Thos.  Clney,  the  other  a  six  principle  formed  in  I  Of)  2  by 
Prawn,  Dexter  and  Wickcnden.  These  Churches  wore  not  in  fellowship 
with  each  other.  In  L682  Thos.Olney  died,  after  which,  that  Church  died, 
out — beanie  extinct. 

The  Church  organized  by  lb-own  Pexter  and  Wickcnden  in  1632 
still  continues,  and  is  known  as  the  first  Church  in  1  Vovidence.  The* 
Roger  Williams  and  the  Olney  Churches,  became  extinct,  the  one  or- 
ganized in  l,r»;VJ,  is  the  one  that  become  "a  fruitful  mother.''  The 
Williams  Church  became  extinct,  leaving  no  successor.  .All  who 
wish  to  see  this  matter  fully,  fairly,  and  satisfactorily  discussed,  arc 
••cfered  to  Klder  §.  Adlam  I  trend  e  upon  this  suhjeet,  to  be  found  in 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METIIOLISM, 


4* 


"the  trials  and  sufferings  for  Religious  Liberty"  and  published  at 
-Nashville  l*enn,  by  the  ''South  Western  Publishing  Iltftoe.? 

The  great  body  of  Baptist  ill  the  United  States  have  descended  from 
the  English  and  l>utch  Baptist,  and  not  from  Roger  Williams  as 
has  been  erroneously  supposed,  confounding  the  Church  organized  iri 
1052  by  Brown,  Dexter  and  Wickenden,  with  the  linger  "Williams  and 
Thomas  Olney  Churches,  has  done  the  Baptist  great  injustice.  Th,-.: 
the  Newport  Baptist  Church,  is  the  Oldest  in  America,  that  theKoger 
Williams  Church,  became  extinct,  and  that  the  present  first  Church  in 
Providence,  K.  I.  was  organized  in  1052,  Elder  S.  Adlam  has  proved 
by  incontestible  evidence* 

Section,  XVIL 

Instead  of  proving  the  divine  right  of  Wesley  and  his  co-adjutors  to 
found  a  Church,  the  validity  of  their  Episcopacy  &c.  Methodist  ap* 
peal  to  their  success — their  great  increase  &c.,  and  say,  tffal  is  evi- 
dence enough  for  us,  that  we  arc  a  true  Church,  where  in  the  word  of 
Clod  has  be  made  this  a  tent  of  a  true  gospel  Church  ?  This  test,  like 
their  Church  and  their  Episcopacy  is  of  human  origin.  This  is  the 
well  known  boast  of  catholics  and  of  errorists  generally.  To  say  noth  in  g 
Of  Mah  om  i  t  i  sm ,  Catholics  &c,  look  at  the  rapid  -increase  of'MotWKMism. 
Let  the  rapid  speadoi  this  monster  of  iniquity,  this  pest  of  civiliza- 
tion, put  to  shame  all  religionist,  who  refer  to  their  great  increase,  as  a 
warrant,  of  the  divine  origin  of  their  sect.  Other  denominations  have 
reoivais  and  great  increase,  Baptist  are  hlest  with  revivals  and  rapid 
increase.  That  ministerial  and  denominational  success  does  not  prove 
that  the  minister  is  a  member  of  the  true  gospel  Church,  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  when  Xarni,  a  Catholic  minister,  preached  in  Home, 
we  are  told  that,  "half  the  city  went  from  his  sermons  crying  along 
tbc  strc-ets,  Lord  have  mercy,  upon  us,  Christ  have  mercy  upon  us." 

However  plausible  this  test  may  seem  to  be,  it  can  avail  Methodist 
nothing  at  all.  In  their  Tract  No.  00,  they  have  admitted  that  Cod 
blesses  the  mini-try  of  those  who  subvert  the  order  of  his  Church. — 
"How  then  are  we  to  account  for  the.  foot,  that  the  blessing  of  Cod 
attends  the  ministry  of  those  whose  practice  tends  to  subvert  the  order 
of  his  Church  ?  God  doeg  'evidewtllj  bleS8  ihose  x<\i<>  strive  against  the 
established  order  of  his  visible  Mngdom,  and  set  at  naught  the  testimo- 
ny of  his  witnesses.  It  is  not  the  furors  i  rr kv  preach  a.vij  practice, 
that  Cod  blesses,  but  the  truth,  men  may  preach  ignorantly  and  absurd- 
ly, and  [  ohm  rash  MOTIVES  ;  and  yet  if  they  prcarh  Christ  crucified, 
God  will  convert  sinners." — Methodist  Tract,  No.  00,  Printed  at  the 
Conference  office. 

W bo  can  read  this  extract,  from  the  Methodist  Tract  No.  00,  and 
not  confess  that  they  have  debared  themselves  from  the  right  to  claim 
that  they  are  a  true  gospel  Church  because  their  ministry  is  blessed 
with  revivals,  and  their  Societies  with  inere'asel 

They  ad/nit  that  men  may  preach  "absurdly"  and  form  ba  sc.  motives," 
that  "they  may  .strive  against  the  established  order  of  Cod's  risible 
kingdom:'  and  yet  "if  they  'preach  Christ  cru/-ifed,  Cod  will  convert 
sinners," 


44 


HISTORY  OP  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM. 


It  is  nothing  that  is  peculiar  to  Methodism,  that  God  blesses,  it  is 
the  preaching  of  Christ  crucified. 

The  preaching  of  Christ  is  no  peculiarity  of  Methodism,  Christ  had 
been  preached  fur  1700  years  before  men  of  "inventive  genius,"  "de- 
vised" Methodism.  If  the  Bible.,  Temperance,  Odd  Fellow,  or  Ma- 
Sonic  society  was  to  send  out  ministers,  and  they  were  to  preach  Christ 
crucified,  God  would  convert  sinners  under  their  ministry,  Methodist 
have  virtually  conceded  this  in  the  extract  just  given  from  the  Tract 
No.  99. 

It  is  God's  ivord,  the  doctrines  of  the  cross  of  Christ  that  he  blesses, 
not  the  person  that  speaks  them.  God  does  not  send  men,  who  "preach 
absurdly,  or  from  base  motives,"  to  preach  the  gospel,  yet  he  does  evi- 
dently convert  sinners  under  the  ministry  of  some  who  are  unconver- 
ted, and  preach  "from  base  motives," 

A^ain  in  justification  of  the  existence  of  this  spurious  and  supper- 
stitious  Episcopacy,  and  Church  of  human  origin,  it  is  said,  it 
has  been  instrumental  in  doing  much  good,  that  thousands  have 
been  converted  under  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  denomination. 

The  good  that  has  been  done,  and  the  souls  converted  under  the 
Methodist  ministry  have  been  by  "the,  preaching  of  Christ  crucified," 
and  not  by  any  thing  that  is  peculiar  to  Methodism.  It  was  not  their 
errors,  their  "striving  against  the  established  order,  of  God's  visible 
kingdom,"  in  setting  up  Methodism  as  a  Church,  that  God  blesses, 
but  the  "preaching  of  Christ  crucified." 

It  is  not  in  evidence  that  the  same  or  a  greater  amount  of  good 
might  not  have  been  .accomplished,  had  Methodist  ministers  labored 
as  zealously  in  connexion  with  the  Church  that  previously  existed, 
and  was  set  up  by  the  Saviour,  as  they  have  in  the  sect  that  was  set 
up  by  John  Wesley,  Coke,  Asbury  &  Co. 

This  will'inore  fully  appear,  when  it  is  recollected,  that  the  picture 
of  Methodism,  has  two  sides  to  it,  the  good  and  the  evil  it  has  done. — 
When,  the  evil  is  deducted  from  the. good,  the  preponderance  will  be 
in  favor  of  their  having  labored  in  connexion  with  the  Church  that 
was  previously  set  up. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  asked,  what  ew'Mias  Methodism  done  ?  To  say 
nothing  of  their  peculiar  doctrines, *  and  discipline,  of  ihelr  Spurious 
and  surresptitious  Episcopacy  and  the  human  origin  of  the  Church, 
etc.,  there  are  many  other  evils.  , 


*The  leading  doctrine  of  Methodism,  Armenianism,  Mr.  Wesley  determined  not  by  the 
Scriptures,  bra  by  casting  a  lot,  he  was  for  a  considerable  time  undetermined  as  to  whether 
ho  would  teach  Calvinism  or  Armenianism,  at  length  he  cast  a  lot.  and  came  out  ."preath 
and  print"  Armenianism.  Rev.  C  o.  Whitfield  remonstrated  with  Wesley  fo>'  determining 
the  mind -of  Gud  by  lot  casting,  instead  of  his  inspired  word.  Mr.  Augustus  Toplady  says, 
Mr.  Wesley  determined  whether  he  would  be  a  Calvinist  or  an  Armenian  by  the  tossing  a  Shil- 
ling. Tails  fell  uppermost,  "and  Mr.  Wesley  became  an  Armenian  !  Mr.  Toplady  adds," 
Forgive  us,  if  we  as  implicitly  determine  our  faith  by  the  Scriptures,  as  you  (Mr.  Wesley) 
determined  yours  by  the  fall  of  the  Splxndid  Shilling';'  Toplady's  Letter  to  Wesley,  p.  8, 
{ .  When  Methodists  are  in  the  act  of  glorification  over  their  Armenauism,  they  should  not 
1  >rget  to  tell  the  people.  "We  are  right,  our  doctrine  is  true,  for  Mr.  Wesley  our  hither  and 
founder,  found  it  out  by  tossing  a  Shilling*— the  Scriptures  are  mysterious — but  when  a 
shilling  is  Hipped,  and  'tails  fall  uppermost'  it  is  pure  gospel  truth,  vr:ach  and  print  V 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM, 


45 


1.  To  set  up  a  new  sect  without  any  authority  from  God,  and  in 
violation  of  his  revealed  word,  is  an  evil  of  itself.  It  is  ciusing  divi- 
sion?, which  are  e>  pressly  forbidden,  and  those  that  cause  them  are  to 
he  marked  and  avoided.    Koine  10,  17. 

Mr.  Wesley  in  his  sermon  on  Schism  speaks  of  the  evil  of  separating  - 
from  the  Church  as  follows.  "For  how  little  a  thing  soever  it  (cause- 
less separation  from  the  Church)  may  seem,  and  how  innocent  soever 
it  may  be  accounted,  Schism,  even  in  this  Sense,  is  both  evil  in  itself, 
and  productive  of  evil  consequences."  Again,  he  says,  "As  such  a 
separation  is  evil  itself  &c." 

Again,  he  says,  "Such  is  the  complicated  mischief  which  persons  , 
separating  from  a  Chistian  Church  or  Society,  &c." 

Again  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "If  I  separate  from  it  (the  Church)  with- 
out any  such  necessity  (that  is,  requiring  him  to  do,  or  omit,  some- 
thing the  Scripture  forbids  or  commands)  I  am  justly  chargeable, 
whether  \  foresaw  them  or  not,  with  all  the  evils  consequent  upon  that 
Separation'7  Again  says,  he,  "Take  care  how  you  rend  (divide)  the 
body  of  Christ  by  separating  from  your  brethren. 

It  is  a  thing  evil  in  itself.    It  is  a  sore  evil  in  its  consequences." 

Again  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "0  beware,  I  will  not  say  of  forming,  but 
of  countenancing,  or  abetting,  any  parties  in  a  Christian  Society,  never 
encourage,  much  less  cause,  either  by  word  or  action  any  division  there- 
in."—Wesley's  Sermons,  v  2.  384,  5,  6,  7. 

If  it  be  such  an  evil  to  separate  from  the  Church,  as  Mr.  Wesley  in 
the  preceeding  extracts  affirms,  how  much  greater  the  evil  of  founding 
a  new  sect,  or  denomination,  and  calling  it  a  Church  of  Christ ! 

If  the  Episcopal  is  a  true  Church,  (and  Methodists  admit  it  is)  the 
Methodist  are  guilty  of  a  double  crime,  1  Schism,  and  2,  Setting  up  a 
new  sect  or  party  ! 

2.  The  contentions  and  perpetual  warfare  between  them  and  other 
denominations,  has  been  and  still  is  a  source  of  incalculable  evil.  If 
they  can  prove  that  they  are  the  Church  set  up  by  the  God  of  heaven 
in  the  days  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  or  that  Wesley,  Coke  and  As- 
bury  and  sixty  preachers,  in  1784  had  a  divine  warrant  to  set  up  a 
new  sect  or  party,  and  call  it  a  Church  of  Christ,  they  are  not  respon- 
sible for  the  evil  that  has  grown  out  of  their  organization.  If  how- 
ever they  cannot  prove  this,  and  were  set  up  by  Wesley  and  his  co- 
adjutors, th«ey  are  responsible  for  this  evil.  That  they  were  set  up  by 
W  esley  as  Societies  in  the  Church  of  England  and  remained  there  for 
fifty-five  years,  and  in  1784  were  voted  by  sixty  of  Wesley's  traveling 
preachers  into  what  is  called  "the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  has 
oeen  fully  proved. 

3.  Another  evil  of  Methodism  is  seen  in  the  rivalry  in  Churches, 
Schools,  &c,  which  causes  an  enormous  outlay  of  money,  in  towns, 
villages,  and  in  the  country  where  Churches,  Schools,  &c,  already 
sufficiently  exist. 

That  they  have  been  pioneers,  and  have  built  up  Societies  and  Schools 
where  preaching  was  needed  is  admitted,  but  it  does  not  follow  from 
this,  that  they  might  not  in  connexion  with  the  Church  of  God  that 
previously  existed,  have  done  the  same  thing.  „  A  minister  in  order  to 


43 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHOMSM. 


preach  ihz  gospel  does,  not  necessarily  have  to  lea  Methodist.-  If  he  doosr 
the  gospel  was  never  preached  before  the  days  of  John  Wesley,  and 
them  for  the  first  nine  years  by  an  unconverted  man  ! 

4.  That  Methodism  is  an  evil,  is  seen  in  the  divided  and  antagonis- 
tic front  which  the  christian  world  presents.  A  large  proportion  of 
which  Methodism  has  produced.  Methodism  is  a  prolific  mother.  It 
is  the  mother  of  "Wesleyan  Methodists/7  "Primitive  Methodists'7  and 
"the  Calcinistic  Methodists,"  of  England  ;  and  of  "the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church.''  "The  Okelleyites  first  called  "Republican  Methodist"- 
and  afterwards  "the  Christian  Church,"  of  "the  Protestant  Metho- 
dist s>;  &c,  in  America. 

If  Mr.  Wesley  had  a  divine  warrant,  to  found  a  Church,  he  and  his 
co-adjutors  are  not  responsible  f3r  these  divisions,  in  Methodism;  if 
they  had  no  such  divine  right,  he  and  his  followers,  are  responsible, 
for  their  existence,  The  same  is  true  of  all  other  denominations  If 
the  God  of  heaven  set  them  up,  and  others  have  seceded  from  them, 
they  are  not  responsible  for  it.  If  they  set  themselves  up,  by  seceding 
from  any  other  denomination,  they  are  responsible  for  their  own  exis". 
fence  and  all  that  have  seceded-  from,  them.  No  denomination  is  a  true 
Church,  that  has  seceded  from  any  other  denomination.  Methodism 
as  a  Church  seceded  from  the  Church  of  England,  the  Okelleyite  or. 
Christian,  and  the  Protestant  Methodist,  have  seceded  from  the  Epis-. 
opal  Methodist  neither  of  which  can  be  true  Churches,  for  two  rea^- 
sons. 

1.  If,  as  has  been  shown,  the  Methodis|  EpiscopaMs  not, a  true  Church,, 
its  offsprings  cannot  be. 

2.  If  the  Methodist  Episcopal  w  a  true.  Church.  Okelleyites  and 
Protestant  Methodist,  are  seceders,  and  have-  caused  divisions,  for 
which  they  are  to  be  "marked"  and  "avoided"  Horn.  16,  17. 

5.  The  evils  of  Methodism  that  liave  been  specified,  are;  not  confin- 
ed to  England  and  America,  but  are  spreading  in  heathen  lands.  Their 
ministers  are  teaching  the  benighted  heathen  that  Methodism  is  a 
true  Church  of  Christ  set  up  by.  divine  authority.  It  is  there  a  rival' 
of  all  other  denominations,  all  the  contentions,  warfare  &c,  peculiar 
to  Methodism  here,  is,  and  will  be  transplanted  there  !  Will  not  this 
retard  the  success  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  ?  In  view,  of  this; 
fact,  and  the  awful  consequences  attending  it,  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  every  denomination  should  seriously  and  anxiously  enquire^ 
by  what  right  does  my  denominations  exist  ?  Is  it  of  divine  or  hu- 
man origin  ?  was  it  set  up  by  God  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  apos-. 
ties  or  is  its  origin  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  hundred  years  afterwards? 
What  is  its  lineage,  is  it  from  the  true  and  witnessing  Church  that  fled' 
into  the  wilderness  and  remained  there  until  the  Reformation,  or  is  its 
decent  from  the  great  Romish  Apostacy,  the  Catholic  Church  ?  No 
true  Church  has  decended  from  Rome,  or  from  any  of  her  offsprings. 

The  time  has  come,  when  every  denomination  claiming  to  be  a  Church- 
of  Christ,  should  be  put  to  a  rigid  test  of  its  divine  or  scriptural  right, 
to  be  acknowledged  as  a  true  Church  of  Christ.  God  is  not  the  author 
of  antagonistic  sects.  There  are'counterfeit  Churches,  as  well  as  mem-, 
fyers,  if  any  of  us  are.  in  a,  counterfeit,  false,  or  Spurious  Church  we;, 


HISTORY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM.  47- 

eught  to  know  and  abandon  it,  very  few  have, ever  given  this  subject 
a  full  and  candid  investigation,  they  have'  taken  for  granted,  what 
.should  first  have  been  proved i  Reader,  are  you  a.  Qhmch  member  ?- 
If  so,  have  you  ever  seriously  and  honestly  inquired  into  the  origin  of 
the  Church  of  which  you  are  a  '  member  ?  If  you  have  not,  for  any 
thing  that  you  know,  you  are  a  member  of  a  counterfeit  Church,  got- 
ten up  and  organized  without  any  divine  warrent.  If  the  denomina- 
tion of  which  you  are  a  member,  is  of  Romaifs  C&tholiQ descent,  or  if  it 
has  seceded^  from  any  denomination  that  is  of  Romish  origin,  if  it 
caused  a  division*  and  thereby  made  a,  new  sect  or  denomination  when 
it  came  into  existi'nce  you  may  know  that  you  are  , not  belonging  to 
the  Church  which  the  God  of  heaven  set  up,  for  it  did  not  descend  from, 
any  other  denomination,  it  caused  no  division.  It  was  set  up  by  him 
in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  has  hapl  a  perpetual  exis- 
tence. He  who  set  it  up,  said,  "It  shall  never  be  destroyed,  it  shall 
stand  forever/''  •  " 

Section.  XVIII 

Methodists  asserts  that  *!God  thrust  them  out. to  raise  a;holy  people."  - 
— Discipline  p.  3. 

These  we  are  told,  are  .the  words  of  Charles  and  Jphn  Wesley. 

Notice,  lr  By  saying  "God  thrust  them  out"  they  plead  a  divine 
warrant  for  their  existence.  How  did  the  Wesley's  ascertain  that  "God 
thrust' them  out  ?'-'  The  Bible  is  as  silent  upon  this  subject  as  the 
grave.  If  they  found  it  out  at  all,  I  suppose  it  was  by  casting  a  lot, 
the  "splendid  Shilling"  .was  perhaps  nipped,  or  "tossed"  and  all  was 
revealed !  ' 

Notice,  "2.  God  did  not  ".thrust  them  out,"  for  they  (the,,  Wesleys) . 
lived  and  died  members  of  the  Church  ' of  England,  I  have  already  prov- 
ed that  John  Wesley  died-  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
that  he  wa#  "sorry  the  separation"  took  place  .between  his  Societies  in 
America  and  the  Episcopal  Church.— See  Dr.  Coke's  Letter,,  to  Bishop 
White.      '•'  " 

Notice,  3.  They  thrust  themselves ,  out.    From  1729  to  1784,  they , 
were  members  of,  and  received  the  Ordinances  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  has  been  shown.    Mr.  Asbury  in  his  Journal,  and  Mr.  Lee 
in  his  His.  of  Meth.  say,  "we  formed  ourselves  into'  an  Episcopal 
Church," 

It  was  the  magic  vote  of  sixty  of  Mr.  Wesley's  travelling  preachers . 
that  "thrust  them  out."  God,  who  has  expressly  forbidden  "divisions"  • 
in  or  of  his  Church,  and  commanded  us  to  "mark  and  avoid,"  those  , 
tjiat  cause  them,  had  no  agency  in  settling  up  Methodism  as  a  Church, 
It  was  done  by  men  of  "inventive  genius/'  and  consequently  it,  is  not  ', 
a,  true  Church  of  Christ.  '  - 


L.  B.Cat.  No.  1137 


287. 6  P514 


P12S65 


^HOOLOFKFir^ 


